Yes. It might be valid or not. As a medical examiner, see we are put in the middle, medical examiners should be an independent scientist.
Dealing with patients, our concern is when we do autopsies, we are doing for the family and for the society in general, we always have to relate to the family. I spent a few years in internal medicine before going into pathology and that's what's important.
So I have found in New York that many times when there have been encounters with correction officers in jail, we had riots in jails and encounters with police, that the sooner you're able to tell the family what happened, remember we do an autopsy and 95 percent of the information is obtained within the day of the autopsy. We then wait for the toxicology, histology, which is usually not necessary legally.
Somebody shoots somebody or gets in a car accident and is drunk, we'll call that a homicide, for example, a homicide. They wait on the autopsy report that we don't, that we don't wait for everything to come through. Even though that every shooting, every homicide there is a toxicology on, but if somebody was shot yesterday, they'll come out tomorrow and tell you what the cause of death is even though everything is not completed.
So just from my experience as a chief medical examiner is that the sooner that this information is given out, it calms everybody down because one of the things I saw happening with the family here and many other families, whenever somebody dies in an encounter with the police, they immediately often don't trust the police. And then if the medical examiner doesn't release the finding right away they feel, as happened here, that the medical examiner is covering up for the police, and that has to be dealt with. As a physician, I have to deal with that with the family.
Now, sometimes it's a value to not release information because you are going to get information, you don't want people to know what happened and you don't want people to make up stories.