I have got what I feel to be, an interesting possible theory on what is generally believed to have been confusion during the first six weeks in regard to manner of death. Bear with me, I'll try to make it as brief as I can, although I seem to experience difficulty in being brief. ;[
If it is true, it's something they cannot speak of at this time, for obvious/political/politically-correct/relationship/etc, reasons.
I was thinking about my dismay that they chose to use what I considered to have been a 'junior' forensic pathologist for the autopsies of both victims in this case, considering this case seems to be not your everyday murder/case, seems to possibly have some staging and therefore possible deception involved (imho). I don't want to argue with anyone about the 'junior' status. I know that six and a half years seems a long time to be in a position, however imho, a forensic pathologist role is a lifelong learning occupation.. the longer one is doing it, the more they will see, the more experience they will gain, etc. I don't think anyone could dispute that?
When the family hired Chiasson, I was surprised that some felt that his assessment would/could/might be inferior somehow, to Michael Pickup's assessment, considering Chiasson has been considered an expert in forensic pathology in over 200 court cases and had performed thousands of autopsies before December 2017 (
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/james-turpin-murder-trial-defence-1.3614416), he once held the role of Pickup's
boss (Chief Forensic Pathologist for the province of Ontario) for seven years (1994-2001) (interesting reading in 'the Goudge Report'). Even worse that some might even possibly entertain the thought that a pathologist of Chiasson's stature would risk his reputation just because he was hired privately by a family hoping for a certain outcome.
I was afraid of mixing up Michael Pickup's name with his boss, Michael Pollanen, so I was doing some looking around. Barry and Honey were murdered in December 2017. I came across some articles which suggest that Pollanen has somewhat of a documented history of what is sometimes referred to as 'tunnel vision'.. looking at a scenario, making a decision, and then seeking backup to support that decision, rather than the opposite, which is supposed to occur. Also, that he has been accused of messing with other pathologists' findings, bullying them, etc.
Given this information,
what IF...... all along, Pickup, the pathologist who actually performed both autopsies, had believed it to be a double homicide (he had removed both victims' wrist skin samples to keep as evidence of some kind), but his hands were tied by his superiors, in remaining undetermined?
For example.. it has been reported that police spent an
enormous amount of money investigating this case. I suspect that the financial resources available to police could not continue indefinitely, and especially if there was nothing from the ME's office to say that the deaths were homicides. I also suspect that TPS wasn't super interested in dealing with the family's assembled team of detectives, legal, and pathologist, because it *seems* like it may have been, or at least had the potential to create, a conflict in many different ways (imo).
As a further 'what IF..', for all we know, a situation of this sort could have been happening also within the TPS, whereby certain higher-up LE believed it to be one thing, while perhaps others, possibly those doing the actual investigating, believed it to be another thing? Then along comes KD with his headline news one day, that the couple was murdered, as per the
second pathologist... an announcement which reportedly seems to have supposedly led to police finally meeting with him, and then making their 'targeted double homicide' announcement/press conference. It may have been what had been suspected by most all along, but hands were tied, until kind of publicly forced into action. IIRC, I recall there being reports that Susan Gomes had said that she hadn't ever thought it was M/S, or something to that effect?
All of this is just to say... we, the public, don't have a clue what is going on behind various doors, until things become unveiled, like at a trial, or an inquiry. imo.
----
"Pollanen fell into several major pitfalls laid out by the landmark Goudge inquiry sparked by Smith's work, Molloy found.
Among them was confirmation bias - reaching a conclusion and working backward to find evidence to support it, and professional credibility bias - being unwilling to change an opinion once stated"
DR. MICHAEL POLLANEN-SLAMMED-ONTARIO CHIEF PATHOLOGIST
----
In a case that parallels a scathing judge’s decision about Ontario’s chief forensic pathologist two years ago, Dr. Michael Pollanen has been accused of interfering in the work of the province’s other forensic pathologists, pressing them to change their findings in suspicious deaths and undermining those who disagree with him.
...
Dr. Jane Turner, a forensic pathologist who worked for almost two years at the Hamilton Regional Forensic Pathology Unit and is now working as a consultant in St. Louis, Mo., made the allegations in an Aug. 12 letter to Ontario Solicitor General Sylvia Jones.
“My complaint against Dr. Pollanen is not that I am always right and Dr. Pollanen is always wrong, but rather that his interference, bullying and insistence on compliance threaten the integrity of the system of death investigation,” Turner told Jones.
“No one is allowed to challenge his views.”
Christie Blatchford: 'Bullying' Ontario chief forensic pathologist accused of interfering with cases | National Post
----