Email correspondence with Mr. Craig Harvey
On August 27th I had a quite extensive email correspondence with Mr. Craig Harvey. I had sent one email to all the four email addresses listed on the website of the LA County Coroners Office, though Mr. Harvey's email address is not listed there.
My question in the email was based on what Mr. Harvey said after the autopsy:
One of the reporters asked the spokesman:
Was there any controvercy about the death certificate signature by the doctor?
The answer to that question was:
No, the problem with the death certificate is that there was no doctor to sign the death certificate which then requires then that the coroner becomes involved because if there is no doctor to sign a death certificate then it falls to the coroner to do that function. So that is how we became involved in the first place. Had he been under the care of a doctor and that doctor been willing to sign the death certificate the coroner would not have become involved.
I asked:
I was highly surprised to hear "Had he been under the care of a doctor"! The media reports that UCLA staff tried to revive Michael Jackson for over an hour, and now it appears that no doctor was present during that time??!
Can you please tell me if this is indeed the case?
Also, if a doctor had been present and willing to sign the death certificate, then what would have been listed as the cause of death? If the cause of death would have been obvious, then why does it take so long for the autopsy results to come out?
Just a little over an hour after I sent my email I got a reply from Mr. Harvey. I was surprised to even receive an answer, because why would a coroner even bother to answer questions from some girl who's living on the other side of the ocean..? I was stunned to see his extensive answer, he put a lot of effort into that while all he had to say was "Sorry, I can't give you any information regarding this case".
Here's what Mr. Harvey replied:
The issue as to whether a person’s death falls under the jurisdiction of the Coroner under California law depends on the immediate/suspected cause of death. In certain cases, a private physician may sign a death certificate and the Coroner need not be involved. These deaths are always due to natural causes. In other cases, by law, only the Coroner can sign the death certificate due to the immediate or suspected cause/manner of death, e.g. gunshot wound, hanging, accident, suicide, homicide, etc.
The term “under the care of a doctor” or “had a doctor in attendance” means on its’ face that a person had been seen by a physician for a minimum specific period of time and that physician had a medical opinion as to the cause of death. It does not necessarily mean that there was a physician physically standing next to the patient when they died. In most cases, ER doctors do not sign death certificates for the many patients they pronounce dead upon arrival or shortly thereafter each year at their hospitals. Either they legally cannot sign a death certificate due to the cause of death or they simply have limited information on which to base a medical opinion.
Because no physician came forward to sign a death certificate, the Coroner had to be notified. Even if a physician had come forward to sign a death certificate, the cause of death would have to be based on documented/known medical history and due to natural causes with no external factors involved. If someone had signed a death certificate with inaccurate information, other physicians who know the patient or family members could contact the Coroner and the Coroner could take jurisdiction if the information is found to have merit.
Lastly, the vast majority (99%) of physicians will not jeopardize their profession or their livelihood by signing a bogus death certificate. They have too much at stake should their fraud be detected and reported.
My jaw dropped when I saw that last paragraph... Since Mr. Harvey was clearly willing to answer some questions I tried my luck and sent him another one:
What would be the purpose of blacking out the signature of the deputy coroner on Michael Jackson's death certificate? Nowadays it's just a typed name and a stamp, so I don't see any reason for blacking that out.
Just 11 minutes after sending my email Mr. Harvey replied again:
I am not sure why some of the information is redacted. The death certificate is a State of California document, not a Coroner or County of Los Angeles document. They set the rules on what they deem as “private or confidential”. I can understand redacting surviving family names and addresses and social security numbers, but some of the other stuff escapes my logic capacity.
I happily emailed back and forth with my new best friend, and received a total of 9(!) email from him until he went home to have dinner. There was one other interesting answer which I will post here also. My question was:
Something else I was wondering about, and I hope you don't mind me asking you - Why did you say "I am here to announce that the coroner has concluded the autopsy for mister Michael Jackson instead of on mister Michael Jackson? I'm sure you already realized English it not my native language...
Mr. Harvey's answer:
It is probably mostly semantics. I suspect it has to do with keeping in mind that our clients are people first not an object.
Draw your own conclusions...
My question in the email was based on what Mr. Harvey said after the autopsy:
One of the reporters asked the spokesman:
Was there any controvercy about the death certificate signature by the doctor?
The answer to that question was:
No, the problem with the death certificate is that there was no doctor to sign the death certificate which then requires then that the coroner becomes involved because if there is no doctor to sign a death certificate then it falls to the coroner to do that function. So that is how we became involved in the first place. Had he been under the care of a doctor and that doctor been willing to sign the death certificate the coroner would not have become involved.
I asked:
I was highly surprised to hear "Had he been under the care of a doctor"! The media reports that UCLA staff tried to revive Michael Jackson for over an hour, and now it appears that no doctor was present during that time??!
Can you please tell me if this is indeed the case?
Also, if a doctor had been present and willing to sign the death certificate, then what would have been listed as the cause of death? If the cause of death would have been obvious, then why does it take so long for the autopsy results to come out?
Just a little over an hour after I sent my email I got a reply from Mr. Harvey. I was surprised to even receive an answer, because why would a coroner even bother to answer questions from some girl who's living on the other side of the ocean..? I was stunned to see his extensive answer, he put a lot of effort into that while all he had to say was "Sorry, I can't give you any information regarding this case".
Here's what Mr. Harvey replied:
The issue as to whether a person’s death falls under the jurisdiction of the Coroner under California law depends on the immediate/suspected cause of death. In certain cases, a private physician may sign a death certificate and the Coroner need not be involved. These deaths are always due to natural causes. In other cases, by law, only the Coroner can sign the death certificate due to the immediate or suspected cause/manner of death, e.g. gunshot wound, hanging, accident, suicide, homicide, etc.
The term “under the care of a doctor” or “had a doctor in attendance” means on its’ face that a person had been seen by a physician for a minimum specific period of time and that physician had a medical opinion as to the cause of death. It does not necessarily mean that there was a physician physically standing next to the patient when they died. In most cases, ER doctors do not sign death certificates for the many patients they pronounce dead upon arrival or shortly thereafter each year at their hospitals. Either they legally cannot sign a death certificate due to the cause of death or they simply have limited information on which to base a medical opinion.
Because no physician came forward to sign a death certificate, the Coroner had to be notified. Even if a physician had come forward to sign a death certificate, the cause of death would have to be based on documented/known medical history and due to natural causes with no external factors involved. If someone had signed a death certificate with inaccurate information, other physicians who know the patient or family members could contact the Coroner and the Coroner could take jurisdiction if the information is found to have merit.
Lastly, the vast majority (99%) of physicians will not jeopardize their profession or their livelihood by signing a bogus death certificate. They have too much at stake should their fraud be detected and reported.
My jaw dropped when I saw that last paragraph... Since Mr. Harvey was clearly willing to answer some questions I tried my luck and sent him another one:
What would be the purpose of blacking out the signature of the deputy coroner on Michael Jackson's death certificate? Nowadays it's just a typed name and a stamp, so I don't see any reason for blacking that out.
Just 11 minutes after sending my email Mr. Harvey replied again:
I am not sure why some of the information is redacted. The death certificate is a State of California document, not a Coroner or County of Los Angeles document. They set the rules on what they deem as “private or confidential”. I can understand redacting surviving family names and addresses and social security numbers, but some of the other stuff escapes my logic capacity.
I happily emailed back and forth with my new best friend, and received a total of 9(!) email from him until he went home to have dinner. There was one other interesting answer which I will post here also. My question was:
Something else I was wondering about, and I hope you don't mind me asking you - Why did you say "I am here to announce that the coroner has concluded the autopsy for mister Michael Jackson instead of on mister Michael Jackson? I'm sure you already realized English it not my native language...
Mr. Harvey's answer:
It is probably mostly semantics. I suspect it has to do with keeping in mind that our clients are people first not an object.
Draw your own conclusions...
Comments
though, i m surprised too of the explicit way he answered to all your questions !!
So, Dr. Murray couldn't have signed the death certificate, because he knew Michael's "death" wasn't do to natural causes. <!-- s:?: -->:?:<!-- s:?: -->
If it was already suspect that the cause wasn't natural, why did the police wait so long to go to his house to investigate and collect evidence?
If he died at his house, I couldn't understand why they would take him to the hospital. They could take him straight to the coroner.
<!-- s:?: -->:?:<!-- s:?: -->
this is interesting <!-- s:ugeek: -->:ugeek:<!-- s:ugeek: -->
nope if you die at home the coronor is called in....u cant move a dead body!!! ILLEGAL
<!-- s:shock: -->:shock:<!-- s:shock: --> Wow it's really interesting that he wrote you the truth about it <!-- s:D -->:D<!-- s:D -->
I couldn't understand what exactly he wanted to say with his last answer. <!-- s:oops: -->:oops:<!-- s:oops: -->
is he admitting its fake????!!! <!-- s:shock: -->:shock:<!-- s:shock: --> <!-- s:shock: -->:shock:<!-- s:shock: --> <!-- s:shock: -->:shock:<!-- s:shock: --> <!-- s:shock: -->:shock:<!-- s:shock: --> or did i misread?
<!-- s:shock: -->:shock:<!-- s:shock: --> <!-- s:shock: -->:shock:<!-- s:shock: --> <!-- s:shock: -->:shock:<!-- s:shock: --> <!-- s:shock: -->:shock:<!-- s:shock: --> <!-- s:shock: -->:shock:<!-- s:shock: --> <!-- s:shock: -->:shock:<!-- s:shock: --> <!-- s:shock: -->:shock:<!-- s:shock: --> i am not feeling any good after reading his statement about the hoax but this freaked me out! i dunno what to think now! <!-- s:| -->:|<!-- s:| -->
Lastly, the vast majority (99%) of physicians will not jeopardize their profession or their livelihood by signing a bogus death certificate. They have too much at stake should their fraud be detected and reported.
what does a BOGUS DEATH CERTIFICATE mean? doesn't bogus mean "fake"? <!-- s:D -->:D<!-- s:D --> That's what I got from it <!-- s:D -->:D<!-- s:D --> Or am I wrong? <!-- s:oops: -->:oops:<!-- s:oops: -->
So, I wasn't wrong about the BOGUS part <!-- s:D -->:D<!-- s:D --> HE'S ALIVE PEOPLE THE CORONER ADMITS IT HELLOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!! <!-- s:D -->:D<!-- s:D -->