Found Deceased MA - Michael Doherty, 20, Franklin, 14 May 2017

[xxxedgexxx]

Just so I'm clear (sometimes I'm not) here is my definitions of foul play...


The term foul play can mean unfair game - a prank would include this but I use it more towards organized sports
or
commonly used by LE - violent crime.

When I said LE indicated no "foul play" they made those comments after finding his body. They didn't observe anything that would indicate he'd been physically harmed such as strangulation/gunshot/knife/beating or any markings on his body caused by another person.

ETA - LE also uses the term when they can't determine that anything is amiss in a case. Meaning SO FAR nothing indicated that someone else caused the harm.

Just wanted to clarify this: LE described this missing persons case as "no foul play suspected" from the very morning he went missing. They reiterated that stance several times before finding his body, or even knowing if he was alive or dead. This always struck me as strange.

 

[xxxedgexxx]

Yes. It would also be why the phrase "no foul play" has been hammered, it appears, in every report---even from early on. A prank gone wrong, from what I have found (I gave an example in an earlier comment) seems to be stated as "no foul play".

If Michael was pranked it may even be buried. The thing is, if there is an understanding this was a botched up prank, legally what can be done by the State? It would be up to the parents, I would assume. Unless there is some pranking gone wrong law that was broken. It wasn't a hazing issue. I think it's up to Michael's parents to pursue legal retribution or some kind of justice. If they don't want to, then what can be done? Drinking underage may cause some issues because Michael was under age. If they find drugs in his system, then who put them there--they'd say he took them himself (which I do not believe he'd do).

If they determined it was a prank, the state would have a tough road ahead to bring charges just because of all of the people there and all of the differing stories they may be told. But if we are to assume this is what happened (I still think this is the longest of long shots of a theory), the answer would be a wrongful death lawsuit by the family, and probably involuntary manslaughter. This is a felony, but is the lightest, least severe charger of "murder". Involuntary manslaughter focuses on recklessness or negligence without the intent to kill. So, bringing this back to the prank theory, if John Smith, party-goer, tricked or dared Michael to cross the golf course/ marsh/ brook, and Michael died in the process, that would be the category it fits into. I am assuming there was no malice intended towards Michael. The person could get off with just probation in some cases. It's basically the "this was an accident, I didn't know, but it was still stupid and ended up killing someone" law.

If there are lawyers in this thread, please feel free to correct me. I only have a few semester of legal classes under my belt from ages ago.

 

[Amethyst289]

Hey guys. Long time lurker here. I read through this case pretty quickly and seem to have missed something. I've seen mention of his friends searching for him 8 times. Where did this come from? Is it fact or just part of the prank theory? TIA


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[LaneGirl]

All of USA is 21.

hehehe I thought this was in England I'm following too many cases and getting mixed up now.

 

[JuniorSleuthy]

Hey guys. Long time lurker here. I read through this case pretty quickly and seem to have missed something. I've seen mention of his friends searching for him 8 times. Where did this come from? Is it fact or just part of the prank theory? TIA

It's here http://www.milforddailynews.com/news/20170515/franklin-search-comes-up-empty

 

[xxxedgexxx]

It's here http://www.milforddailynews.com/news/20170515/franklin-search-comes-up-empty

“I checked the same spot eight times just thinking he was going to be there,” he said. “This is the weirdest thing.”

This is the quote of interest in the article. I honestly have no earthly idea what spot he could be talking about. What we can glean from this is that Shawn, the person who was quoted, checked that "spot" after he knew Michael was missing, we assume. We assume Shawn did not know he was missing until the parents did. What we do know is that family and friends started searching before LE began it's official search, which according to the article was 10:30am (for family and friends).

LE were called around 130pm according to this article (http://www.fox25boston.com/news/fra...-20-year-old-no-foul-play-suspected/522880862)

So there was a full 3 hours where his friends were out there looking without LE even knowing about it. Prank idea is starting to look better and better to me as weird as it sounds. Or something being covered up. I wonder how much analysis they did of the ground and area where Michael was found, like footprints, disturbances of branches, etc.

 

[inmyhumbleopinion]

This is my problem too. Especially if he was as well liked as MSM is portraying. I'd even think as few as 5 wouldn't all keep quiet if this was a prank gone wrong. Just my opinion though.

I would like to know how many of those who were at the party have told LE they actually offered Michael a ride.

Also, how many said they actually saw him leave the party, or they were still there when Michael left?

The current narrative (i.e., that Michael was "coherent," he charged his phone but not for long before he left, he said he was taking the path, etc.) needs to be verified by more than one person, IMO.

 

[bluesneakers]

Medical Examiner findings are not public, from what I know.
If Michael's parents opt to share with the public to put to rest the speculations, we may learn what they show.
This has been my experience.

Sharing - not meant to be argumentative.

Not trying to be argumentative, but when has that happened? I've seen it speculated in many cases - that the family would not allow the results to be released - but in each of those cases the results have been released.

 

[Curiosity7]

Not trying to be argumentative, but when has that happened? I've seen it speculated in many cases - that the family would not allow the results to be released - but in each of those cases the results have been released.

I can't speak to what you've seen.
All I can say is that I have a family member who died and it was an "unaccompanied death" and MA state law mandated an autopsy.
But the results were not public information.

The DA investigating the death did not have the authority to release the autopsy report.

This is my experience and it's all I can speak to.

 

[Curiosity7]

I can't speak to what you've seen.
All I can say is that I have a family member who died and it was an "unaccompanied death" and MA state law mandated an autopsy.
But the results were not public information.

The DA investigating the death did not have the authority to release the autopsy report.

This is my experience and it's all I can speak to.

Wanted to add, since it occured to me after rereading your question, that it would be different if there were criminal charges and a legal proceeding. In that instance, of course the results of an autopsy would be part of the case and released to the court and legal parties and then could become a part of the public record.

In my case, there were no criminal charges brought, so the results of my family member's autopsy were private.

So, if the DA does not press charges in this case, we may never know the autopsy results unless Michael's parents decide to release them to squelch speculation.

 

[bluesneakers]

Wanted to add, since it occured to me after rereading your question, that it would be different if there were criminal charges and a legal proceeding. In that instance, of course the results of an autopsy would be part of the case and released to the court and legal parties and then could become a part of the public record.

In my case, there were no criminal charges brought, so the results of my family member's autopsy were private.

So, if the DA does not press charges in this case, we may never know the autopsy results unless Michael's parents decide to release them to squelch speculation.

I've seen them released when the results were not criminal - suicidal or accidental or undetermined - and in cases when the family disagreed with the results or did not want the results shared. I don't know the law. I can only tell you after almost three years on Websleuths I have never seen a case in which the autopsy results not released on the family's request.

 

[Curiosity7]

I've seen them released when the results were not criminal - suicidal or accidental or undetermined - and in cases when the family disagreed with the results or did not want the results shared. I don't know the law. I can only tell you after almost three years on Websleuths I have never seen a case in which the autopsy results not released on the family's request.

That is what I am saying.
The autopsy results, whether part of a criminal case or not, can be released if the family gives permission.
Otherwise, they are not public.
It's up to the family, in this case, Michael's parents, to give permission to release them if they so choose.
If they choose not to, and there's no charges brought, we may never know the results.

Perhaps I need to clarify...my family member's autopsy results were private - no criminal case - but we knew the results, of course.
The ME released the full report to the next of kin.
That's what I mean by private, but of course we had the report/results.

 

[bluesneakers]

That is what I am saying.
The autopsy results, whether part of a criminal case or not, can be released if the family gives permission.
Otherwise, they are not public.
It's up to the family, in this case, Michael's parents, to give permission to release them if they so choose.
If they choose not to, and there's no charges brought, we may never know the results.

Perhaps I need to clarify...my family member's autopsy results were private - no criminal case - but we knew the results, of course.
The ME released the full report to the next of kin.
That's what I mean by private, but of course we had the report/results.

Okay, maybe I didn't explain it right. Sorry. I mean the autopsy results were released despite the family's wishes. The family had no say in whether or not they were released. There were cases where they did not want them released for personal reasons (like a suicide), and there have been cases where they didn't want them released because they believed the results were incorrect.

I am sure we will get the autopsy results in Michael's case, though it will take some time, and the family might dispute the results and might even hire another coroner to review them. I've seen that happen too.

Other than criminal cases that are still open I haven't followed a case here where we did not get the autopsy results eventually. It can be disappointing though, because we have our own opinions as to what happened, or because they are undetermined or accidental which really doesn't tell us anything. And in one suicide I think probably 80% of the people on the thread and the victim's family didn't believe the results. (It was an extreme, and unusual case to say the least. There's another similar one still pending.)

Dakota James drowned in Pittsburgh in January and his autopsy (cod was accidental drowning) was released only a week ago . His family has hired an outside ME to review the report.

Eta: perhaps I have the terminology wrong? Death certificate vs autopsy report? I just realized I only say autopsy but maybe I'm talking about the death certificate.

 

[Curiosity7]

Okay, maybe I didn't explain it right. Sorry. I mean the autopsy results were released despite the family's wishes. The family had no say in whether or not they were released. There were cases where they did not want them released for personal reasons (like a suicide), and there have been cases where they didn't want them released because they believed the results were incorrect.

I am sure we will get the autopsy results in Michael's case, though it will take some time, and the family might dispute the results and might even hire another coroner to review them. I've seen that happen too.

Other than criminal cases that are still open I haven't followed a case here where we did not get the autopsy results eventually. It can be disappointing though, because we have our own opinions as to what happened, or because they are undetermined or accidental which really doesn't tell us anything. And in one suicide I think probably 80% of the people on the thread and the victim's family didn't believe the results. (It was an extreme, and unusual case to say the least. There's another similar one still pending.)

Dakota James drowned in Pittsburgh in January and his autopsy (cod was accidental drowning) was released only a week ago . His family has hired an outside ME to review the report.

Eta: perhaps I have the terminology wrong? Death certificate vs autopsy report? I just realized I only say autopsy but maybe I'm talking about the death certificate.

Thanks for the clarification.
Yeah, I think, perhaps, the issue is death cert v autopsy report.
From what I know, autopsy reports are private...family only...unless part of a criminal proceeding.
So, it's up to the next of kin if he/she/they release the info.

The DA, in Michael's case, may release the cause of death since it's an unaccompanied death and that part may be public since part of his investigation.
But from what I know he doesn't even have to give the cause.
Most likely he will given the amount of public interest in Michael's case.
But one's autopsy report is def private otherwise.

 

[bluesneakers]

Thanks for the clarification.
Yeah, I think, perhaps, the issue is death cert v autopsy report.
From what I know, autopsy reports are private...family only...unless part of a criminal proceeding.
So, it's up to the next of kin if he/she/they release the info.

The DA, in Michael's case, may release the cause of death since it's an unaccompanied death and that part may be public since part of his investigation.
But from what I know he doesn't even have to give the cause.
Most likely he will given the amount of public interest in Michael's case.
But one's autopsy report is def private otherwise.

I also use coroner and ME interchangeably and I don't think that's right either... For all my reading and posting here I'm still a newbie to the legal lingo.

 

[darring21]

In all instances, a death certificate is generated. In some cases, the cause and manner of death may be listed as pending until the medical examiner completes his/her studies.

Depending upon the circumstances of the case, an autopsy and/or toxicology report may be available. To request autopsy and/or toxicology reports, the legal next of kin and those with written permission from the next of kin should send a written request to the Office of Chief Medical Examiner

A death certificate is a public record. Anyone may obtain a copy of the death certificate at the city or town where the death occurred. As for autopsy reports, in addition to the next of kin or those with written permission from the next of kin, autopsy reports may be issued to a treating physician who has an association with the death, district attorneys and other agencies who need the report in order to complete an investigation into the individual's death, lawyers who are involved in criminal or civil litigation involving the death and insurance companies.

http://www.mass.gov/eopss/agencies/ocme/frequently-asked-questions.html

In Massachusetts, a death certificate which will include cause and manner of death is public record. An autopsy is not public record but may get into the public record as the result of a trial.

 

[cranbraley]

Can you share the list? I'm particularly interested in the ones who have gone missing from the east coast of the U.S. and Canada.

 

[ArtChick83]

“I checked the same spot eight times just thinking he was going to be there,” he said. “This is the weirdest thing.”

This is the quote of interest in the article. I honestly have no earthly idea what spot he could be talking about. What we can glean from this is that Shawn, the person who was quoted, checked that "spot" after he knew Michael was missing, we assume. We assume Shawn did not know he was missing until the parents did. What we do know is that family and friends started searching before LE began it's official search, which according to the article was 10:30am (for family and friends).

LE were called around 130pm according to this article (http://www.fox25boston.com/news/fra...-20-year-old-no-foul-play-suspected/522880862)

So there was a full 3 hours where his friends were out there looking without LE even knowing about it. Prank idea is starting to look better and better to me as weird as it sounds. Or something being covered up. I wonder how much analysis they did of the ground and area where Michael was found, like footprints, disturbances of branches, etc.

It's insane to me to think that his family and friends could have been looking for him for possibly three hours (before LE stepped in) and no one could find him just 200 yards from the house… Anyone else find this odd?

 

[LaneGirl]

It's insane to me to think that his family and friends could have been looking for him for possibly three hours (before LE stepped in) and no one could find him just 200 yards from the house… Anyone else find this odd?

He may have not been were he was found when they stopped searching? idk

Also I'm curious where he was found is there a trail or did he go off trail through bush, forest etc?

 

[bluesneakers]

It's insane to me to think that his family and friends could have been looking for him for possibly three hours (before LE stepped in) and no one could find him just 200 yards from the house… Anyone else find this odd?

No, it happens a lot.