Originally Posted by chugalug2
US Herc, in case no one has PM'd you, details on Coroners, both UK and US types, can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coroner I see ours go back to the 11th Century, not sure about yours though!
Thanks - it helps some. As usual, divided by common language.
As you can probably tell by the very rambling & unspecific US entry there, it varies by state, county, & municipality in the US. I guess I grew up watching
Quincy and always thought of coroners in the M.E. light.
I now see both sides of this. I don't think I care much for your system having a single individual with seemingly unfettered power to subpoena & whose decision is all but final, but I do see the checks & balances it can provide against the bigger gov't machine.
With this new-found insight, however, I can see why the video is important - but to the coroner for the inquest, not for Mrs. Hull. I still stand by the fact she wasn't lied to about what happened & the tape doesn't change anything. For the Coroner's Inquest, however, there would seem to be a great deal of importance in having the tape and whether there was MoD/DoD obstruction in obtaining said tape.
Now that we can agree on why the coroner would want the tape, we can argue if he should or shouldn't be given access to it.
As I still have much ignorance about how the CI is conducted, I can only guess based on my limited gleaning of info here & elsewhere, that it is very much public. If so, I still have heartburn with the tape being used as documented evidence for public scrutiny (realising that with the Sun having it on their website, we're talking principle now)
Even in our publicly accountable AIB investigations, we do not document certain things & there is often a small, classified addendum. For example, we usually do not name General Officers - where they are referenced, it will be by some sort of code - GO1, GO2, etc. The classified addendum will have their name, actual rank, & post. It's not to protect them from prosecution (if they're found culpable, they will be prosecuted), rather, to protect them (and the military) from media circus antics like we're seeing with these A10 pilots. We will also do this (code) in order to declassify something where it adds substance if we can (and we can't always).
Realise that our investigations happen very quickly. The SIB portion has 30 days from the date of the incident to publish their report!!
They may seek an extension from the board convening authority, but that is the exception rather than the rule. They also have near unlimited resources at their disposal to find the cause. The second public AIB operates on an equally quick schedule with 30 days to conduct their investigation starting when the SIB turns over the factual data (usually in the second to third week of their investigation). The AIB operates from a substantially less-funded perspective and has limited resources available to them requiring approval from the board convening authority for major expenditures.
Because they're concluded w/in 60 days of an incident, things such as callsigns, R/T, tactics, etc. are very fresh, so we do classify that much in order to retain as much OPSEC as we can.
I offer the last few paragraphs merely as more insight into our processes. For insomnia, you can download the manuals governing both investigations, at least as it pertains to the USAF, online: search for: SIB is
AFI 91-204 & AIB is
AFI 51-503