mavs00
New member
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.
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.
Last edited:
