Forensic Detectives vs Medical Examiner re: bones????

Divers Search For Caylee Near Cross In Tree:
Head Of Equusearch Doubts Remains Will Be Found
POSTED: 7:34 pm EST November 9, 2008
UPDATED: 1:15 pm EST November 10, 2008

<snipped>
In other news:

/ Texas EquuSearch workers found some bones on Monday morning that resemble a rib cage. A medical examiner was called out to look at the discovery, and said the thinks it will turn out to be animal bones.


Article:
http://www.wesh.com/news/17943280/detail.html
__________________
I found this bizzarre. When this article first came out, it said that the medical examiner was called who said it will probably turn out to be animal bones. Then later it is confirmed by forensic detectives? Why wouldn't the medical examiner (who I thought was the final word) know right away - Why would he turn bones over to forensic detectives after viewing them and let them make the statement? Are they the final word? Do they work for the medical examiner? Does anyone know?

Also, why was the story changed afterwards to exclude the comment of the medical examiner?

I find this really strange. Could it be that LE is CYA'ing until a DNA check? If they turn out to be Caylee, they could say the ME said "possibly animal bones."

JMO - Thanks for any insight.

I would think if the bones were from a rib cage it would be quite easy to determine if it was human or animal, just like a skull would be. I believe a forensic detective is essentially a criminalist, extracting DNA from the bones (if they are human bones), for example, while the medical examiner determines performs autopsies and determines manner/cause of death. MOO

I would love to see their org chart.

i think this has already been posted and removed because it was animal bones. let me know if anything is different and I will be happy to open this thread oh and the other topics are already in threads I believe. let me know if that is not the case.