Patric McCarthy

As someone that followed this case (with sadness) last year, and also as someone that works as a forensic death investigator (at a large ME office) I felt compelled to add a few thoughts.

It’s neither uncommon or unusual for families to dispute official “cause and manner” of death certifications. It’s also certainly not unheard of to call in outside “experts”, such as Dr. Baden (whom I’ve met) to re-review or interpret autopsy findings. On occasion, albeit rare ones, additional evidence is obtained that would justify the “changing” of official rulings. It’s generally neither a slight, nor a “stain on a department” for this to occur (unless it’s a happens all the time). Anyone involved in the medicolegal field fully understands the “scrutiny” under which we operate. Given this climate, determinations of this sort are made only after full review of the evidence and facts, and are generally NOT made lightly. It's always about the truth, and I would doubt very seriously any of the “cover-up” theories I’ve heard so far. That’s the stuff of CSI episodes, not real life.

If this new evidence does not dispute and significantly call into question, the physical and empirical evidence used to make the initial determination in the first place, there will be little chance that a change in those findings will occur. Mark S is 100% correct in that it’s not the police investigation you need to dispute at the moment, it was the ME that made the determination that the death was due to “cold exposure” (cause) d/t an accidental chain of events (manner). Once that determination was made, there is really nothing for police to investigate at that point. I will tell you, that it'll be tough to dispute the autopsy findings. There are pretty significant differences (from an autopsy findings standpoint) between deaths from “cold exposure” and those from homicidal violence. There are virtually no findings in exposure deaths and, depending on the modality of death (such as strangulation, shooting, stabbing, etc), there are generally multiple, easily documentable findings in deaths due to homicidal trauma.

I’ve been involved in a bunch of “exposure” death investigations, and there is often some incidental trauma noted (from falling or stumbling in the end stages), as well as other “odd” behavioral findings. But in general, the trauma would clearly differ from that found in a violent homicide death. Without straying further off topic (which we already are), John makes a real good point, and I’m sure it was taken into account in the initial determination. I’ve been involved in hundreds of homicide investigation and Patrick’s final location was in such a place as to discount it as a “realistic” body dump site. Murderers are not likely to bushwhack uphill several THOUSAND feet, through dense NE mixed conifer/hardwood forests to dispose of their victims. It just doesn’t happen, and goes against almost all logic and known behavioral characteristics for those who commit such acts. Again, that may happen on TV, but it really doesn't in real life. That alone is pretty a pretty good indication that this death is likely exactly as officials currently say it is.

In any event, I hope that the family eventually finds peace in whatever the outcome to this horrible and tragic death is. My condolences to the McCarthy family, Mr. Murray and all those who've been personally touched by this terrible loss.

p.s. I represent no agency, nor official source of information and these thoughts are just my own ramblings on this subject.

response

Many news stations and papers that have interviewed the PI hired by the McCarthy family cannot disclose the facts of this case for legal reasons. Such as names of the suspects and explicit eveidence. By doing so will open up the Mcarthy family, newsstations as well as the PI to liabilties until NH authorities consider this an "open case" and a "crime."

I have been following this case closely as I am a CC resident. One thing that should be pointed out is the reason why Patric's clothes were never found. The killer bragged to a friend and teacher who spoke with O'Connell and MA police that he suffocated Patric in the dirt, removed his clothing (which explains why they were never found in the most extensive NH search in history) and move his body to make it appear that Patric got lost in the woods. Please see www.record-enterprise.com article. The killer also told three people Patric was going to "get lost" in the woods and told two people that "patric was not coming back." Even if the killer lied about suffocating Patric and he did infact get lost in the woods, the result was still death. That is still grounds for manslaughter as opposed to murder one. Either way a crime was committed.


Personally, I feel that is wrong for the NH authorities to not investigate an unattened death of a child. Any unattended death requires a complete and proper investigation. The NH authorities should join O'Connell and the McCarthy family in the fight for justice and re-open their investigation. I feel badly for the McCarthy and Murray families as they continue to fight for their little boy. I also commend the investigator for his commitment to this case and doing it for no reason other than justice for Patric.

According to Todd Bougardis, NH Fish and Game, a lost adult traveling up hill gets no farther than 3/4 mile and 2 miles down hill. This is a national statistic. Therefore, it is unreasonable that Patric could travel two and a quarter miles up mountain. Bougardis also said that Patric's body was "way off the charts." So far that they waited till the 5th day to search the remote area.

Also, it is common for people in the last stages of hypothermia to strip their clothes, BUT it is the trail of clothes that lead to a body. I am not convinced that Patric died of hypothermia. Why would he take his coat, hat and socks off, but then put his shoes back on. From the logical perspective, that does not maky any sense to me.

Suffocation cannot be ruled out, because there are no hard and fast indicators of suffocation to be found in autopsy.

Most importantly, what are the chances that a suspect would tell three prior to the trip that Patric will get lost in the woods, and in fact the story told to the police was that Patric got lost in the woods while returning to the condo from the playground. NH authorities were aware of this information while searching for Patric and told Fish and Game that there is a possibilty they he may have been "dumped" up in the mountains.

The private investigator spoke with two witnesses who were told prior to Patric death, that he would not be coming back from the weekend. And in fact, Patric was found dead.

Is seems to me that NH State Police have an agenda and do not want to open this case, regardless of what evidence has been revealed.

As a citizen of the state of NH, I feel compelled to question the competence of the authorities. This was not the only case they have refused to investigate the possibility of foul play...we cannot forget Maura Murray. What do they have to lose in investigating Patric's death...in the end they may have to say they were wrong, but it may save the life of a future victim...In my opinion, a child's life is more important than anyone's professional reputation.

To clarify a few facts presented by the "P.I.". The minimum temperature on October 13, 2003 in and around Lincoln, NH was not 43 degrees. It was 28.2
Please see http://www.almanac.com/weatherhistory/oneday.php?number=726130&day=13&month=10&year=2003

The very next day, probably in the middle of the night of the 13th and 14th, the temperature dipped down to 27 degrees.

Also, the FBI, NH Fish & Game, and NH State Police all investigated, interrogated, examined and reviewed all possible connections directly and indirectly to Patric. For a "witness" (who was a child, 13) to "come forward" a year later and make a statement that the "murderer" told her of a confession is, well, you figure it out.

Further, only the state police know what was told to them and confirmed by immediate family and friends who were close to Patric. Patric and his brothers weren't wearing socks the day they went off to play in the woods. A P.I. hired by one family member not involved in Patric's life on a day to day or week to week basis would not. After being on vacation, playing in the woods, football on his birthday in the rain, running around all weekend, there wasn't clean laundry left on Monday. Not that any 10-13 year old boy wants to take the time to put on socks when they can just throw their shoes on and run outside to play. Patric was not wearing socks the day he became lost, nor were his brothers.

All of the comments submitted by those who are knowledgeable of the conditions and aware of the facts of such a tragic situation as this, and how they occur, are taken with comfort. Patric is missed so much.

Nice to hear from you Margaret (MLBSW)! Your response is very enlightening...The evidence is overwhelming and JUSTICE will be served for Patric!

Here is a little more from the “for what it is worth department”. Sorry for it length in advance.

JoeC said:

According to Todd Bougardis, NH Fish and Game, a lost adult traveling up hill gets no farther than 3/4 mile and 2 miles down hill. This is a national statistic. Therefore, it is unreasonable that Patric could travel two and a quarter miles up mountain. Bougardis also said that Patric's body was "way off the charts." So far that they waited till the 5th day to search the remote area.

Click to expand...

There are so many things wrong with this statement that it is hard to know where to start.
I don't know if Mr. Bourgardis said this. If he did, I don’t know that Mr. Bougardis was quoted accurately. I don’t know if Mr. Bougardis was involved with the search. I don’t know if you are telling us what someone else said that Mr. Bougardis said. You don’t have his statement in quotes so I don’t know if you are paraphrasing or maybe trying to paraphrase him. I seriously doubt that a professional would say something like this because it is a patently ridiculous statement. He may say that 60% (made up number) of the lost adults who are located and are going in an uphill direction are within 3/4 of a mile from the PLS (place last seen). It is certainly not impossible that he could have gotten farther. Many of us (even an old fat man like me) walk uphill and get much farther than 3/4 of a mile. Any person walking with purpose could easily travel a mile an hour in most terrain. Yes, I know, and have been in terrain where I have been slower also. I am talking about similar terrain to where I believe Patric was found and the terrain I believe that he traversed. To say that he could not have gotten farther than 3/4 of a mile is again ridiculous and I am giving Mr. Bougardis the benefit of the doubt that he didn’t say it as listed. Also why would he be referencing LPB (lost person behavior) information for an adult, not a 12 year old.

I had stated previously that:

Many 12 year olds will follow the path of least resistance when lost. 58% of them go downhill. 87% usually stay on the path or trail as well. That should have brought him down the drainage not up. Strange but not totally out of order. 93% of children in this age group are found within 2 miles of the PLS.

Click to expand...

Of course that means that if 58% of them go downhill then 42% go uphill. If 93% are found within 2 miles of the PLS then of course that means that 7% are found farther away. When you consider that about 50% are actually found in the house where they have supposedly disappeared from maybe you can see how useful this number actually is. We had a 12 year old girl walk north for 4 days and traveled about 8 miles. She actually walked over the CT border into Massachusetts and was located by a Mass state trooper. Some of the terrain was pretty difficult and the nights were uncomfortable at best. Low 50 degree nights with a gentle rain a few nights. It could have had a very different outcome. 12 year olds can and do travel long distances. What motivated him. Did he know that he was lost? Was he sure that he was on the right path? When he figured out he was on the wrong path did he panic?

When the POA (probability of area) is calculated it is based upon assumptions. Those assumptions may be based upon the LPB as well as being fine tuned or totally changed based upon the experiences of the IC or more likely the search commander. How many searches for 12 year old boys have been done in that area? After a search is done of an area the search team returns and is debriefed to determine what the POD (probability of detection) was. This is another estimate that the searchers have to make. Every time this is done then the POA is recalculated to determine where searchers should be allocated. If evidence of passage is found during a search then again the POA is adjusted in that area and nearby areas. Questions about the quality of the evidence be it footprints or clothing articles may adjust the LKP (last known place) also again totally changing the POA and making the IC reallocate searchers and resources to new areas.

I hope that you are starting to see that this is more of intelligent guessing than anything else and the past experience is a considerable driving force. You are trying to keep the odds with you by playing the best cards. In this POA calculation there is what is called ROW. ROW is the rest of the world. It is the places that you don't believe that the subject is located. The ROW can never be discounted from the POA equation and is never 0% because it is always possible that is where the subject is.


To speak to some of the other matters that has been raised.

I am not saying that everything was done the best that it could have been. I don’t know. I believe less than half of what I read from newspapers and even less than that from online sources. This is based on my experience.

Hopefully anyone more knowledgeable than I will straighten me out if I misspeak. MAVS00 if you know the answer to this or anyone else please jump in. If Patric did die of hypothermia what he actually dies from is a fatal heart arrhythmia. Does that leave any enzyme changes in the blood like a heart attack does that could be traced? It would not surprise me if it didn’t but I don’t know.


About:
His clean hands. The body was being washed with heavy rains and winds for several days after his death. It doesn’t really surprise me that the hands where clean especially if his hands were directly exposed to the elements or in rushing water. His body was found in a drainage correct?

His lost clothing articles. Again hypothermia can cause people to do strange things. The fact they were not found only proves that they were not found. You cannot prove that they are not there unless you find them elsewhere. Without knowing his actual route of travel it is hard to know where the clothing is or what route to search. If you find it in a place that it shouldn’t be (like somebody else’s house) then you may have some physical evidence of possible wrong doing at some level but not finding clothing is meaningless.

I don’t know how much Patric weighed but carrying him (it sounds like some people think he was killed elsewhere) up to that location would not have been an easy task not to mention the possibility of being spotted and leaving evidence of your own passage. I know that most of the people on this board have hiking experience. Can any of you imagine the difficulty of carrying a child like that over your shoulders up that hill, or two people carrying him slung between them, thinking that you could be spotted at any time? Many of us have carried 30, 40, 50, even 60 or more pounds in a well fitting backpack. I would consider carrying this weight over the shoulders to be a very difficult task. Again, this is not impossible but it seems very unlikely without some evidence to support the idea.

The dirt in his nose. If he was climbing up the drainage and slipped backwards with his face in the dirt could that have forced material up his nose? Is this very uncommon?

Again, I don’t know the answer to these questions. I am not saying it is impossible that a mistake was made. I said from the start that there were things about where he was found that seemed strange to me also. That doesn’t mean that strange things don’t happen. I don’t have access to the evidence that the investigators had, but, I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt unless someone can convince another M.E. to look at the case and see if he comes to different conclusion as too the manner of death.


Keith

Corrections and clarifications

Previous postings indicated Low Temp on Oct.13,2003 to be 28.2. At the top of Mount Washington, ( 6200' ) Yes! Not in and around Lincoln. The " P.I. " was correct. 43 degrees.
Based on the National AVERAGE, if a victim is found to have travelled uphill from PLS that distance is .75 miles. If a victim is found to have travelled downhill from PLS that distance is 2.0 miles. This young boy was found 2.25 miles uphill from PLS. 3 times the National AVERAGE!
Disturbing facts surround the absence of his clothing (Coat,Hat). Law enforcement and ME claim hypothermia. A Victims clothing is always found nearby the body.
Reports indicate prior to the family going away for the Columbus Day weekend that a statement was made by an individual close to the victim that indicated " Patric would not be coming back " and that " Patric will probably get lost". Can anyone give me the statistical chances that these two statements could have been made and the outcome result as it mentioned????
Many curious issues surround this little boys death. Stay Tuned!!!

Patrics story must continue

Why have there been no postings since 2/2/2005 to respond to the questions surrounding the issues about the statements which were made by an individual closest to Patric that he would not be coming back? And also to the statements which were made prior to the Family going away that, " Patric will probably get lost." Is there anyone out there who can dispute the illogical statistical chances of someone making a statement that, #1. a child is "not coming back." And #2, A child will probably get lost? And the end result is just that. CHILD LOST,CHILD DEAD.
Please do not be shy. Make your comments and try to justify Patrics death as just a poor unfortunate accident.
The judgement of an un-biased Forensic Pathologist has indicated that Patrics death was certainly not accidental. The truth is on it's way.

TQuest said:

Why have there been no postings since 2/2/2005 to respond to the questions surrounding the issues about the statements which were made by an individual closest to Patric that he would not be coming back?

Click to expand...

Because there is nothing to comment on. There are unsupported claims, without evidence or corroboration, against a medical examiners report. Without something tangible, there's no way to make a meaningful comment.

A child is dead, and it's a tragedy. But so far, there is nothing to show it was anything beyond an unfortunate mishap in the woods.

I think most of us see this for what it is, a fishing expedition.

You are the one who keeps telling us that "the truth is on its way".

Well, we are waiting. So far nothing.

I believe that most of us here knows the truth. Others are trying to make the "truth" fit with their own agenda. This child is dead. It was an unfortunate accident. All the evidence points to it. The FBI, Mass town police, NH state police and USFS all checked and then rechecked the evidence (including those statements you are talking about) and have not changed the manner or cause of death.

Balls in your court. When you have something that the police or M.E. actually think is interesting enough to reopen the case, please let us know. Otherwise there is really nothing to talk about.

Keith

why no detailed response to the PI report?

David Metsky said:

Because there is nothing to comment on. There are unsupported claims, without evidence or corroboration, against a medical examiners report. Without something tangible, there's no way to make a meaningful comment.

A child is dead, and it's a tragedy. But so far, there is nothing to show it was anything beyond an unfortunate mishap in the woods.

Click to expand...

SAR-EMT40 said:

I think most of us see this for what it is, a fishing expedition.

You are the one who keeps telling us that "the truth is on its way".

Well, we are waiting. So far nothing.

I believe that most of us here knows the truth. Others are trying to make the "truth" fit with their own agenda. This child is dead. It was an unfortunate accident. All the evidence points to it. The FBI, Mass town police, NH state police and USFS all checked and then rechecked the evidence (including those statements you are talking about) and have not changed the manner or cause of death.

Balls in your court. When you have something that the police or M.E. actually think is interesting enough to reopen the case, please let us know. Otherwise there is really nothing to talk about.

Keith

Click to expand...

What's missing, and what troubles at least me is the lack of factual responses to
the points raised in the PI's report. Why haven't the authorities said something to
the effect 'we have determined the individual claiming responsibility could not
have been connected to Patric's disappearance' , or 'the PI admitted to dreaming
up the whole thing to get a movie deal', etc. Anything other than 'we see no reason
to reopen the case'. If they never read the report they could say "we see no reason"
and that would be a fact. I have to imagine they did read it, but I don't recall if
they've even said they reviewed the PI's information very thoroughly and actually
followed up on the points raised. Then again, following up on the PI's information
would by virtue reopen the case, correct? Was the entire report dismissed without
the slightest consideration? Is that what you would want if this were your child?

The bottom line is that we do not know the truth. There is evidence that leads to
a conclusion, but that's it. Certain people place higher value on certain information
than other information, and that leads to different conclusions. No matter how you
look at it, a conclusion is only that. Personally I would never profess to know the
truth here, not in a situation where, among other things, a confession has been
made and not (publically) deemed false.

The NH and Mass authorities could do themselves a huge service if they were a little
more forthcoming with the reasons for not reopening the case. Certainly they can
manage this without naming names or divulging details that would cause further
problems.

Until then, I think it is very reasonable to remain skeptical about the current official
conclusion given the lack of a detailed response to the PI's report.

Is it just me or does everyone seem to forget what this is all about? This is about an unattended dealth of a child. Whenever there is an unattended dealth, authorities have a civil obligation to investigate thoroughly and properly. If there is doubt that this has not been done to the fullest, then the authorities should re-open the case or give valid reasons as to why they will not reopen the case. Reasons such as “ They didn’t have anything we didn’t already know. The investigation stays as it is as far as we’re concerned. It’s closed,” said Sergeant Charles West. This doesn't answer anything, espcially 11 pages worth of evidence that clearly was never looked into at the time of Patric's death.

I am not only skeptical about the validity of the NH police investigation, but I am concerned at their lack of professionalism. There is no doubt in my mind that they read the PI's report, but investigate the new information he presented in two days of having the report... I don't think so.

If NH state police and Sgt Charles West are so confident in the investigation that they orginally conducted then what can it hurt to reopen this case? Think about that for a minute![B] If NH auhtorities have nothing to hide then re-open the case and prove it to us![/B]

JoeC said:

If NH state police and Sgt Charles West are so confident in the investigation that they orginally conducted then what can it hurt to reopen this case? Think about that for a minute![B] If NH auhtorities have nothing to hide then re-open the case and prove it to us![/B]

Click to expand...

For one I'm sure they feel they have nothing to prove. Secondly they operate within a budget and reopening cases without blindingly obvious and compelling reasons is not what you do when you barely have enough funding to work your active cases. Maybe they don't like the idea of a PI finding things they didn't. Again it all comes down to responding to the information. For all we know they did know about what the PI found beforehand (but hopefully they shared that with the PI before his investigation, if so). Or maybe they did chase down what the PI reported, and properly ruled out all validity and just didn't elaborate to the press. The case could be quiet because it truly is under investigation but that fact is not being made public! Who knows?

In absence of full disclosure to the outside world, all I hope is that the family knows more than we do, and that will help them someday find peace. As a parent, I cannot imagine a greater nightmare than what this family has dealt with. The fact that they have chosen to not let it end with the answer given by the authorities, despite the pain this must bring, surely is worth more than what appears to be casual attention from the officials involved thus far.

Does anyone know of a way to provide more productive help? Is the family seeking people to write letters or make themselves available in some way to help evangelize support? If the time people spent responding to this forum were instead spent writing to our new governor, maybe that would do a bit more good for those directly involved, the family of Patric.

JoeC said:

If there is doubt that this has not been done to the fullest, then the authorities should re-open the case or give valid reasons as to why they will not reopen the case.

Click to expand...

As of now, I haven't seen anything to raise any doubts. Since I'm not privy to the PIs report I have no reason to question the M.E.'s report. The counter evidence that has been made public is extremely weak. If the statements were to be supported (by names, witnesses, confessions, dates) then they would have some weight, but right now they are just too vague to be taken seriously.

I think what this situation amounts to is that until the information is made public, there is no way for us to evaluate if the PIs report is credible. Without any evidence, just unsupported hearsay, the statements about threats happening before the child died carry no weight. They don't really raise any doubt related to the investigation since anyone can make a claim like that.

The police have seen the report and apparently they don't feel that it is credible. Without any further evidence, I'd be hard pressed to question their judgement in the matter. They may have good reason for not commenting further on the PI report, I don't know. It's certainly a valid question, but it doesn't yet throw doubt in my mind on this case. I'm open to the possibility that foul play was involved, but I haven't seen anything concrete.

-dave-

Note that 1) this is allegedly a kidnapping case, 2) although the actual event took place in NH much of the "evidence" is from MA. Hence it seems that the FBI should take over this case from the NH police. Maybe one of the 15 agents looking for Whitey Bulger could be freed for the task.

Also it seems that much of the "evidence" is in the possession of the family and they could bring a wrongful death suit. This could on the one hand spur authorities to action or else get them a verdict that a criminal case could not (see O.J. Simpson).

I'm sorry Patric died, from whatever cause. I understand why the family wants closure. I'm not sure how anyone in this forum is supposed to help.

The FBI was involved. They also reviewed the evidence. They found no reason to get involved more deeply or that anything was wrong with the investigation. My understanding of the law is that the FBI hasn’t taken the lead because the FBI doesn’t have jurisdiction. It becomes a FBI matter if it is suspected or known that a kidnaper has traveled over state lines. This hasn’t happened. Whatever happened to Patric happened in NH. If I am wrong about this don’t hesitate to speak up and tell me so. Maybe the FBI should take the lead because it happened on federal land. Maybe, but the USFS and the NH state police have an agreement about investigations is my understanding. A law enforcement officer with USFS told me that several years ago.

Civil suit. Good idea. Of course the M.E. who examined the body is going to testify that he died of hypothermia. All the police that are called are going to say the investigation ended with the manner of death an accident, and the cause of death according to the M.E. was hypothermia. So are the FBI and USFS personnel. What are the chances you would say wrongful death if you were on the jury. Based upon what? Children who a year later are making accusations that they now remember things that they heard? What are the chances that you would counter sue for defamation and also for attorney’s fees after they lost this case?

TQuest, you are one of the people that are saying you are in the know. Tell us why you believe what you believe. Forget the childrens stories, at least for now. Answer the simple questions that are not open to interpretation. How far would Patric have had to be carried? How much time would the “murderers” have to accomplish the crime? How long did it take you to get to the area of Patric’s body. A quote in the newspaper says this. Cape news article

Mr. O’Connell said he hiked the hill where Patric was found in April. “It took me three hours to get there. It’s incredibly huge. I was filthy when I reached the top.... He did not get to that spot by himself,” he said

Click to expand...

If it took you 3 hours to get there, then it would take 4 or 5 hours minimum for the round trip. How long were the “murderers” out of someone’s sight. Long enough to kill Patric, drag the body up there and then get back??? And again, how much easier would the trip have been if you were carrying Patric up there on your back? This is a very simple timeline question. If you cannot answer this simple question then rethink this and consider accidental death. Also for the sake of Patrics’ family admit that this theory could not work given the timeline that the P.I. says it took to get to where Patric was located.


We are all sorry that Patric is dead.
Keith

response to sar-emt40

Dear Keith,
We are certainly not fishing. Our anchor is set, and the evidence is well beyond your comprehension.
The FBI endorsed our private investigation and promised a very thorough and extensive investigation. It appears they were much too busy with other issues to follow through.
The local police from Bourne,Ma. had absolutely no knowledge of the details surrounding Patrics death and were not in any way informed enough to provide the conclusions to which they provided!
Please review the recent news as it relates to the NH Medical Examiners Office and the criminal activity surrounding the DAME's staff and the Forensic Lab supervisors suspension.
Your comment as it relates to the ball being in our court. That is precisely what this is all about. We have decided that we have the BALLS to investigate to the end when others do not.

Mr. SAR-EMT40 (Summarily -arrogant-responder)

Dear keith,
Before you feel the desire to interject your misinformed opinion about Patrics Death you should fully understand the depth and breadth of all of the intricate details which are understood by T O'Connell and the McCarthy Family. Please sit on the sidelines and observe as the reality of this case moves forward. When all is said and done you will change your forward thinking position.

OK, so let's review some of what's been said by those insistent that the case is a homicide:

A) You have an independent Forensic Pathologist who says the death wasn't accidental;

B) You have a suspect;

C) You have witnesses to coroborate the story.

I am not going to attempt to comment on specifics that I am not privy to, BUT if you are so confident with your case, then why not lobby the DA's Office for a Grand Jury presentation (23 people analyzing evidence presented by the DA with no Defense Attorney present and deciding by majority vote whether a certain charge or charges are appropriate). Like the M.E.'s Office, the DA operates in cooperation with the police but independent of same. And unlike the State Police or M.E.'s Office, the DA is subject to political pressures. Perhaps the reason this route hasn't been pursued by your private investigator is that the so-called case is far weaker than is being presented here. You are far too focused on the police - they've investigated the case and closed it ... right or wrong. Think outside the box.