newjerseyiscorrupt.com

LAST UPDATED:  Dec 28, 2016

Total Visits: 140,462

Total Hits: 683,033

NAVIGATION NOTES

• The “log-in” at the top is for the site administrator only.
• Please click on the link to the right under the heading “Categories” to access each chapter.
• As we prepare each chapter, a new link under the heading “Categories” will be added (any updates made will be noted below and in the chapter itself).
• To make comments, scroll or page down or control/end to the bottom of the document and select “Comments” The page will refresh and the cursor will return to the top of the document. Scroll or page down or control/end to the bottom again and enter your comments. Although your email address is required, it will not be viewable to the public; you may use just your first name if you like. Because of inappropriate postings, we have taken the liberty to screen all postings for appropriateness prior to posting.
• To view the linked (See) documents, click on the numbers or letters underlined in blue located within the chapters.   Please let the site administrator know of any broken links by leaving a comment.  Thanks.

PLEASE NOTE THAT THE BODY OF INFORMATION IS DOWN BELOW THE SUMMARY AND UPDATES.

Summary

Although Dr. Natarajan retired as County Medical Examiner several years ago, she is not protected by expiration of statutes of limiation.  She is not protected for her crimes because this is a suspicious death/murder case that has yet to be investigated by NJ authorities, and statute of limitations for her related crimes are not applicable.  The same goes for her replacement, Dr. Andrew Falzon, who is also the Medical Examiner for Monmouth County.

May 27, 2014:  We will begin writing the book now, since law enforcement, including the FBI, refuse to investigate New Jersey public servant corruption regarding this suspicious death case.

September 5, 2013:  The FBI office in Newark has been contacted regarding this corruption.  We are pending a response from them at this time.  Brian J. Nadeau, Unit Chief of the Pubic Corruption Unit, at the Washington, DC, FBI Field Office, reports that he forwarded our complaint and more than 100 pages of evidence to the FBI Field Office in Newark, NJ, (Claremont Tower Bldg., 11 Centre Place, Newark, NJ  07102) for action.

June 5, 2013:  The Federal Bureau of Investigation, in Washington, D.C., has the case against Dr. DiCarlo and we await their status report as of this date.  It is not known if the case was transferred to N.J. or remains in Washington, D.C.  We hope to be able to provide more information within the next few weeks.  As you may recall, Dr. DiCarlo was appointed the Medical Examiner for Bergen County.  Imagine having someone who falsifies certificates of death working in your county.  One can only wonder why they moved him out of Middlesex County to Bergen County.

March 11, 2013:  Over the past year, a specific complaint filed solely against Dr. DiCarlo was submitted to Gov. Christie, Attorney General Chiesa, and Director Taylor, regarding tampering and falsification of government records, specifically Joyce’s certificate of death.  None of the 3  responded regarding conducting an investigation of DiCarlo regarding the specific criminal charge.  Following this non-response, the same complaint against Dr. DiCarlo was submitted to Mr. Fishman, the US Attorney for the District of NJ.  Mr. Fishman, like the rest, did not respond to the complaint against Dr. DiCarlo (after 45 days of waiting), and/or investigate why the aforementioned public servants refused to investigate or comment regarding the criminal complaint against DiCarlo.  As a reuslt, the same criminal complaint against Dr. DiCarlo was filed in early March with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, 935 Pennsylvania Ave., Washington, DC  20535.

March 10, 2012:  On March 5, 2012, the Office of Attorney General (OAG)received a 331-page material evidence package from me concerning Dr. DiCarlo’s criminal activity (this is at least the third time they received this information over the past few years).  Specifically, Lt. McGrath in Records and Identification (R&I) received direct, relevant, and material evidence which shows beyond a reasonable doubt, that DiCarlo falsified more than one certificate of death for Joyce.

The documents in support of that criminal charge (2C:21-4.a.  Falsifying or Tampering With Records) include actual certificates of death and official changes to Joyce’s certificates of death, along with official correspondence from DiCarlo himself, wherein he admits, by ommision, that he falsified and tampered with Joyce’s certificates of death.

Now with that kind of evidence, why wouldn’t the Attorney General open an investigation and assign a special prosecutor?  The case number for this complaint in the OAG is:  #2005 10192.  Write the OAG a letter and ask about the status of their investigation.  Here is the address for the OAG:  Office of Attorney General, Department of Law and Public Safety, Division of Criminal Justice, POB 080, Trenton, NJ  08625-0080.  Reference case # 2005 10192.  Let us know of any response you may receive.  Thanks.

February 19, 2012:  On February 17, 2012, Ms. Kathleen Donovon, the County Executive for Bergen County, NJ, received the “DiCarlo Package” listing all of DiCarlo’s criminal acts regarding this case, but specifically direct, relevant, and material evidence (almost 300 pages) in support of the criminal charge of falsifying government records (2C-21-4.a.).  DiCarlo can run but he cannot hide.  You can write to Ms. Donovan at:  Kathleen A. Donovan, County Executive, Bergen County, One Bergen County Plaza, Hackensack, NJ  07601.

On February 17, 2012, John Mitchell (Cliffside Park), Chairman of the Freeholders (John A. Felice River Edge; Maura DDeNicola Franklin Lakes; John Driscoll, Jr. Paramus; David L. Ganz Fairlawn; Robert G. Hermansen, Mahwah; and, Joan M. Voss Fort Lee) for Bergen County, also received the same package of information–the criminal complaint against DiCarlo, that the County Executive received.  It is presumed that both the County Executive and all of the Freeholders were aware of DiCarlo’s past criminal accusations, and in all probability, that was the reason for his transfer from the Middlesex County Medical Examiner’s Office.  One has to wonder why DiCarlo would receive what one would consider a promotion?  You can write to Mr. Mitchell and the other Freeholders at:  Board of Chosen Freeholders, County of Bergen, Administration Bldg., One Bergen County Plaza, Hackensack, NJ  07601.

September 21, 2011:  DiCarlo is appointed the Bergen County Medical Examiner.

May 28, 2011:  In April 2011, we received a request from the Attorney General’s Office to send them correspondence relative to numerous letters sent to Gov. Christie regarding the appointment of a Special Prosecutor.  At Det. Davis’ direction (R&I), evidence in support of the criminal complaints was not/not provided at this time.

March 3, 2011: Though Judge Lawrence M. Lawson was proven to have violated Rules of the Court, among others, Judge Glenn A. Grant turned the other cheek and refused to respond to me, and refused to address the corruption under his nose.  Birds of a feather flock together.  For Judge Grant to respond in any other manner would mean a number of public officials would be investigated for corruption.  Now Judge Glenn A. Grant is part of the corruption.  Look for the new chapter on “The Courts” by the end of March.

February 7, 2011: Our response to Judge Lawson’s Opinion was mailed to Judges Lawrence M. Lawson, Glenn A. Grant, and Travis L. Francis today.  We also sent a copy of our response to Gov. Christie.  In addition to our analysis of Judge Lawson’s convoluted Opinion, we requested that a Special Prosecutor be appointed to conduct the investigation, as it is clear the Courts are unable to ensure a fair and impartial hearing wherein we are given the opportunity to present the evidence to support our charges.

January 25, 2011:  Without hearing the 60 other criminal complaints, Judge Lawson dismissed all of them.  In his opinion, received on January 22, 2011, he drew many false conclusions and defended all the defendants making a mockery of the probable cause hearing.  Judge Lawson refused to use the NJ State definition, in the law, for “autopsy”, and instead used a definition from Merriam Webster’s dictionary that suited his intended outcome, which was to refute virtually everything presented by us at the hearing.  His actions, including his animated antics behind the bench, are probably grounds for filing a criminal complaint of official misconduct against him, not to mention violations of his code of professional conduct.  A response is being prepared.

January 13, 2011:  Judge Lawson decided to hear only one of the 61 complaints on 1-11-11 and ended what turned out to be a non-probable cause hearing.  While the Court argued with virtually every statement we made, we were denied the opportunity to present any evidence in support of our statements, with the Court claiming this was not an “evidentiary probable cause hearing”.  We could not find anything in the Rules of the Court addressing the issue.  Judge Lawson is to provide us with a written opinion shortly.  The “Court” is now saying that four complaints not previously documented with the CDR1 or CDR2 will not be heard at all and that all of the “citizen complaints” initially filed by me on June 2, 2010 had to include all the evidence in support of the charges, something no other court told us and the filing court told us not/not to do.  We are as confused as ever as to why the Courts in NJ continue to act in this harassing and frivolous manner.  More to come.

December 27, 2010:  The probable cause hearing is set for January 11, 2011.  We understand the Court intends to hear all 61 criminal complaints in one day, though the Court will not confirm that.  When we asked in what order the complaints would be heard, we were told to consult the Rules of the Court.

October 23, 2010: On October 5, 2010, Judge De Vesa concluded that because of a “conflict of interest” the probable cause hearing previously scheduled in New Brunswick would be transferred to a different county.  A County of Middlesex Attorney (Benjamin D. Leibowitz, Esq.) representing “the County of Middlesex and its officials and employees” was present, and was permitted by Judge De Vesa to sit at the table with me for my hearing.  Interesting to note that the name of the person accused of the suspicious death of Joyce had only his first name on the letter/notice received from Middlesex County Superior Court–why can’t the Court get this straight?  It was reported in a telephone conversation  that the sworn affidavits previously reported as missing, have been located.  This continues the pattern of frivolous conduct and harassment, eh?  What would a reasonable person think?  I am pending notice of the probable cause hearing date and location.

October 7, 2010:  The letter I received from the Superior Court told me to report to 90 Paterson Street, in New Brunswick, for the scheduled Change of Venue hearing held on October 5, 2010, before Judge De Vesa.  The correct address of the Court House is 56 Paterson Street.  The change of venue hearing was held before Judge De Vesa on October 5, 2010, in the Superior Court, New Brunswick.  The outcome of the hearing will be published here as soon as it is received.  It was noted by Judge De Vesa that my sworn affidavits sent by the Monroe Twp. Municipal Court were missing from my 61 criminal complaints following receipt in the Superior Court, New Brunswick.  Superior Court personnel are looking for my sworn affidavits at this time.  The beat goes on in Middlesex County.

September 28, 2010:The probable cause hearing about to be scheduled before Judge DeVesa, as noted in the 9/20/10 update, has been canceled.  More to come.

September 20, 2010:  Frivolous action?  Harassment?  Fair hearing?  The probable cause hearing set for 10-5-10 in Monroe Twp. MunicipalCourt under Judge Boyd was canceled for a second time, citing the same Court Rule previously cited by Judge Boyd in transferring the 61 criminal complaints to the AOC.  The Superior Court informed me today that a new probable cause hearing will be set for Superior Court, Middlesex County, shortly, under Judge Frederick P. DeVesa, date TBD.  I just cannot seem to get out of Middlesex County and the appearance of bias, prejudice, and conflict of interest.

September 19, 2010: Sent to Judges Herman and Francis as noted below, a new probable cause hearing/review has been set.  Changing their minds again, Judges Herman and Francis will not/not decide probable cause, nor will they hear the complaints.  They assigned that responsibility to another judge, still in Middlesex County.  Here we go ’round in circles.  More to come.

September 9, 2010:Judges Herman and Francis will soon be conducting a probable cause review on all 61 criminal complaints.  Judge Herman, you may recall, received the 61 criminal complaints from Sayreville MunicipalCourt, and passed them down to Judge Boyd, who passed them up to the AOC, who passed them back to Judge Herman.  The court believes they have the 61 criminal complaints in the right place this time.  I am told I should be hearing something from the court regarding the status of the 61 criminal complaints fairly soon.  Yes, they are still in Middlesex County.  Yes, we are wary of Middlesex County ruling on criminal complaints against public servants in Middlesex County.  Time will tell.

August 27, 2010: The probable cause hearing scheduled for Aug 17, 2010, was canceled on Aug 16, 2010, by Judge George M. Boyd, for jurisdictional reasons.  The 61 criminal complaints were transferred to the Administrative Office of the Courts.  Court Administrators are refusing to confirm they have all 61 criminal complaints.

July 28, 2010:  A probable cause hearing is scheduled for August 17, 2010, at 9:30 a.m., in the Monroe Twp. Municipal Court, Judge George M. Boyd, presiding.

July 15, 2010, Update:  On July 14, 2010, we learned that the Sayreville Municipal Court transferred the signed criminal complaints up the chain to Judge Herman in Viciniage VIII, who subsequently transferred the complaints down the chain to Judge George Boyd in Monroe Twp., still in Middlsex County. 

July 2, 2010, Update:  On June 2, 2010, Criminal Citizen Complaints were filed against 15 personnel, including Dr. DiCarlo.  The complaints were filed in the Sayreville Municipal Court.  We await a decision as to “who” will investigate the complaints, when considering who the Criminal complaints are against.

On November 2, 2009, Supreme Court Chief Justice Stuart Rabner issued an ORDER denying most of our motions and directing us to file our case in a “trial court.”  In December 2009, we were advised by the Sayreville MuncipalCourt that individual criminal complaints needed to be filed against each person involved in our case; shortly thereafter, the MunicipalCourt sent us copies of the correct forms to complete.  Work continues at this time (February 13, 2010) writing each individual complaint.

Interesting Note:  In 2009 Monmouth County contracted with the Middlesex County Medical Examiner’s Office to handle their medical examiner require ments, as a cost-savings measure.  When I informed Monmouth County of the allegations against the Middlesex County ME’s Office, and Dr. DiCarlo in particular, they simply said they would pass the information along to the correct personnel.

ON SEPT 8, 2009, A MOTION WAS FILED WITH THE NJ SUPREME COURT AGAINST DICARLO FOR FALSIFYING A CERTIFICATE OF DEATH.

Frederick J. DiCarlo, M.D. does not know what “proper forensic practice” is, or he is protecting someone.  DiCarlo, the Assistant Medical Examiner handling our sister’s suspicious death, violated the law when he refused to conduct the mandatory autopsy. Immediately after completing an External Examination, he released Joyce’s body to the person alleged to have murdered her; he did not wait for specimen test results to be returned from the State Lab before permitting all evidence to be destroyed.

Though directing the SayrevillePolice and the County Prosecutor to conduct suspicious death investigations, he never followed up to ensure the completeness and thoroughness of their efforts.  Tests requested by DiCarlowere not conducted to rule out starvation and dehydration.  Subsequent, independent testing of the specimens concluded that at the time of her death, Joyce was dehydrated and starving.  DiCarlo did not order these tests because he knew the results would support the alleged murder allegations.

DiCarlo also falsified a public record.  Subsequent to Joyce’s death, DiCarlo prepared several certificates of death, changing them as the “situation” changed.  The final certificate was changed by Dr. DiCarlo based on his swearing that he conducted an autopsy, that histology supported his opinion, and toxicology results.

Plain and simple, DiCarlo is a liar.  He never conducted an autopsy.  He took no specimens from Joyce to make a determination that histology had anything to do with her death.  Finally, he did not request the two tests from the State Lab confirming that toxicology supported his justification for the change.  Dr. Dicarlo should be charged, criminally, with Official Misconduct, Falsification of Public Records, Hindering Apprehension, Conspiracy, and Pattern of Official Misconduct, among others.  Why does Dr. DiCarlo still have his license to practice in New Jersey?

MEDICAL EXAMINER

The actions described herein, taken by the alleged murderer and the identified public servants, were planned and intentional, as the direct and relevant evidence shows.  Please note that NJ law enforcement has refused to complete a suspicious death investigation of Joyce B (Strouse) Sauter, and that offices previously mentioned have taken actions which have protected the alleged murderer-and themselves-from investigation and criminal charges under the NJ Code of Criminal Justice (2C).  As you know, all parties are innocent until convicted by a jury of their peers.

New Jersey public servants acted deliberately.  Actions taken by NJ public servants were knowing and purposeful, withthe intent to protect an alleged murderer, who is also a former police officer.  Following an administrative (we requested a criminal investigation) review of 669 pages of documentation of direct and circumstantial evidence, Deputy Attorney General Denise Hollingsworth of the New Jersey Attorney Generals Office chose not to initiate a criminal investigation into these charges, declaring the charges were without merit.  Direct evidence submitted to Ms. Hollingsworth, however, shows the guilt of all beyond a reasonable doubt.

The NJ Attorney Generals Office covered for public servants.  Ms. Hollingsworth’s conclusion is a fabrication.  As the evidence shows, Ms. Hollingsworth is now considered part of the NJ State government cover-up and corruption extending from Middlesex County, New Jersey, through Anne Milgram’soffice, that of the New Jersey Attorney General, to the Governor’s Office and on into that of Mr. Marra’s office, that of the Acting U.S. Attorney for NJ.  Though we requested several times to meet with Ms. Milgram, Ms. Milgram declined.  Though given four months to restore the order of law, Governor Jon S. Corzine declined our request to intervene, and referred our allegations back to the Attorney Generals Office.  Though aware of our plight since September 8, 2008, the U. S. Attorney’s Office( under Chris Christie), as recently as December 22, 2008, had no comment.

 

CHAPTER I – MEDICAL EXAMINER

FREDERICK J. DICARLO, M.D.

ASSISTANT MEDICAL EXAMINER, MIDDLESEX COUNTY, N.J.

Our first effort at restoring the order of law centers on the Middlesex County Medical Examiners Office.  This chapter is a story about Frederick J. DiCarlo (last known address in Watchung, NJ).  Some of you reading this know Frederick J. DiCarlo, M.D.  Fred is a 1965 graduate of Mountain Lakes High School. Dr. DiCarlo’s credentials are impressive and include Diplomate, American Board of Pathology, with specialties in Anatomic and Forensic Pathology.  In his high school web site he notes his many achievements over the years including his current employment as an Assistant Medical Examiner in the Middlesex County Medical Examiner’s Office.  How sad for our sister, Joyce B. (Strouse) Sauter, that their paths crossed.  Sad because Dr. DiCarlo knowingly and purposely used his position as a public servant to help shield the alleged murderer of our sister. 

Dr. DiCarlo made a deliberate choice to break the law.  One has to wonder why Dr. DiCarlo would break the law, specifically, certain sections of the New Jersey Medical Examiner Act  thus leading to criminal violations under the New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice (2C), as well.  Because of Dr. DiCarlo’s successful efforts, the alleged murderer of our sister walks free today. Could it be that Dr. DiCarlo cooperated because he was involved in other irregularities that are now hanging over his head?  Perhaps he protected others through his office in the past 11 years of forensic practice?  Perhaps simply protecting a friend or colleague is his motive?  The benefit Dr. DiCarlo received from protecting the alleged murderer could be as simple as protecting a colleague and friend from investigation and prosecution, and the reason could become clearer once a thorough investigation is completed-presuming some law enforcement agency steps up to initiate the investigation of our sister’s suspicious death.  The benefit received by the alleged murderer is that he is still a free man today.

Dr. DiCarlo is a law breaker.  Dr. DiCarlo knowingly and purposely violated many sections in the New Jersey State Medical Examiners Act (New Jersey State Medical Examiner Act, 52:17B)  and the New Jersey Administrative Code (Title 13. Law and Public Safety Chapter 49. State Medical Examiner),  in the course of conducting a limited and incomplete investigation into the suspicious death of Joyce B. (Strouse) Sauter, our sister, with the intent to protect our sister’s alleged murderer.  Two sections violated by Dr. DiCarlo include failure to conduct a crime scene investigation (New Jersey State Medical Examiner Act 52:17B-86, c.) and failure to conduct a mandatory autopsy following report of a suspicious death (NJAC 13:49-1.1.(a) 2.).  Interesting, apparently the New Jersey State MedicalExaminer’s Office found nothing wrong with the actions about to be attributed to Dr. DiCarlo, actions well documented with direct evidence, some by his own hand.  According to information provided by Ms. Denise Hollingsworthof the Office of Attorney General, the NJ State Medical Examiner reviewed the allegations we submitted, though we were not made privy to any comments for the record. (Hollingsworth Documents 219–220 and 252).  Ms. Hollingsworth’s efforts at protecting Dr. DiCarlo et al will be discussed in a separate chapter.

VIOLATION OF PUBLIC TRUST

Dr. DiCarlo violated the public trust.  He also broke the following laws in Title 2C The New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice.   For example, Dr. DiCarlo falsified at least one certificate of death for our sister (Falsifying or Tampering with Records 2C:21-4a); Dr. Di Carlo hindered a suspicious death investigation (2C:29-3b); Dr. DiCarlo tampered with physical evidence and public records (Tampering With Public Records or Information [False Entry or Alteration] 2C:28-7a (1));and Dr. DiCarlo hindered apprehension or prosecution (Hindering Apprehension or Prosecution of Another 2C:29-3a), among others.  As a result of these actions, Dr.  DiCarlo made it possible for the alleged murderer not to be investigated for the suspicious death of Joyce B. (Strouse) Sauterby committing Official Misconduct (Official Misconduct  2C:30-2), as well as a Pattern of Official Misconduct.  Direct, relevant, and circumstantial evidence, in the form of correspondence documentation produced by Middlesex County public servants and the NJ Attorney Generals Office, supports these allegations. 

Joyce’s death went unreported to authorities for over an hour (See Supplemental Investigation Report, Hospice Death/Suspicious Death at 68).  Though Joyce is first reported to have died at 1700 hours on October 29, 2005, according to police reports (See 68, 69, 70 and 440–441), the alleged murderer waited until 1810 hours before contacting anyone (localHospice) for help.  There is no evidence or statement in any officialcounty report indicating that the alleged murderer tried CPR or any other kind of life saving or restoration actions upon finding Joyce dead.  Additionally, the alleged murderer did not call the police until 18:22:00 hours, according to police records.  Why would the alleged murderer wait so long to seek help?  At this point in time, Joyce’s deathis considered “natural” by authorities present at the scene.  Some 3 ½ hours after her death, Joyce’s oldest daughter telephoned Bill Strouse (Joyce’s brother) and informed him of Joyce’s death.  Why wait 3 ½ hours to notify family? 

A SUSPICIOUS DEATH IS REPORTED

Joyce’s death  was untimely.  Joyce’s death was immediately reported as suspicious by Bill Strouse to the N.J. State Police, who referred Bill to the South Amboy Police, who referred Bill to the Sayreville Police Department.  Bill reported Joyce’s suspicious death to the Sayreville Police Department who (See 68, 69, 70), in turn, reported the “suspicious death” of our sister to the Middlesex County Medical Examiners Office (Medical Examiner) at 2208 hours, as required by the NJ State Medical Examiner Act (New Jersey State Medical Examiner Act 52:17B-86).  The Sayreville Police Department also spoke with the Middlesex County Prosecutors Office at 2218 hours that evening regarding the suspicious death of our sister, as required by law (52:17B-87).  And, as required by the New Jersey State Medical Examiner Act, the Medical Examiner’s Office spoke with the Prosecutors Office that night as well (See 68, 69, 70 and 74 and 78–79), and directed the Prosecutor to conduct an investigation (See 78) into the suspicious death of Joyce (52:17B-87); such an investigation by the Prosecutor is mandatory when a suspicious death is reported (52:17B-86, 87, 88).  So far, so good.  These facts are documented in the Sayreville Police Department’s report, and the Medical Examiner’s Report of External Examination.  Here is where things take a strange turn.

MANDATORY INVESTIGATIONS NOT CONDUCTED

Required investigations were not conducted.  Neither the Medical Examiner’s office nor the SayrevillePolice Department conducted mandatory investigations in accordance with the New Jersey State Medical Examiner Act and standard Sayreville Police Department investigative protocol.  When a suspicious death is reported, as it was  by Bill around 2030 hours on the evening of October 29, 2005, in addition to the Sayreville Police Department being required to conduct a crime scene investigation, the MedicalExaminer’s Office was also required to conduct a crime scene investigation, along with the Prosecutor’s Office (New Jersey State Medical Examiner Act 52:17B-86.c. Investigation of deaths; causes).  You guessed it.  Neither the Sayreville Police Department nor the Medical Examiner’s Office nor the Prosecutors Office established a crime scene nor conducted a crime scene investigation (See 68, 69, 70 and 78 and 129–130).  Let’s keep the focus on the Medical Examiner’s Office for now.  A look-see at the Sayreville Police Department and the Prosecutor is down the road a ways yet.  Be patient.  Back to Fred. 

Following the report of a suspicious death by the Sayreville Police Department to the Medical Examiner’s Office, the Medical Examiner’s office failed to take immediate control of the deceased’s body (52:17B-87).  Specifically, the law states that upon notification of a “suspicious death” (52:17B-86. c.),

“Immediately upon receipt of such notification, the said medical examiner or his deputy or assistant shall go to the dead body and take charge of the same.” 

Although notified by the SayrevillePolice Department that a suspicious death had been reported (See 78–79), the Medical Examiner did not “immediately” take charge of Joyce’s body.  In fact, according to Dr. DiCarlo’s Report of External Examination, certified by Dr. DiCarlo, he did not take charge of Joyce’s body until October 31, 2005, some two days after her suspicious death report was received by him and his office (See 74).

Dr. DiCarlo’s decision not to take immediate charge of Joyce’s body on October 29, 2005, was deliberate.  In addition to violating the Medical Examiner Act, Dr. DiCarlo’s decision not to take immediate charge of Joyce’s body is suspicious in and of itself.  Why would Dr. DiCarlo wait two days?  Did someone prompt Dr. DiCarlo to wait two days?  Did someone tell Dr. DiCarlo to wait two days?  Did Dr. DiCarlodecide on his own volition to wait two days to take charge of the deceased who remained in the private funeral home of the alleged murderer?  Was Dr. DiCarlo ignorant of the law?  And what happens to the evidence, Joyce’s body, over that two day period?  Does the deterioration and breakdown of the body make it less possible to determine if strangulation occurred?  Do drugs break down in the body rendering toxicology examination less accurate?  Do other tissues and chemicals break down in the body making it impossible to conclude what may have happened?  Why wait two days?  There is no explanation in any of Dr. DiCarlo’s records why he failed to immediately take charge of Joyce’s body.

Dr. DiCarlo decided to wait to take charge of Joyce’s body for a reason.  Did Dr. DiCarlo decide to wait two days because the alleged murderer, a former police officer, was known to him?  Did Dr. DiCarlo wait because the alleged murderer was a personal or professional friend or colleague of his, one withwhom he routinely worked withon other criminal cases?  Did Dr. DiCarlo wait because, according the Sayreville Police Department Supplemental Investigation Report dated October 30, 2005, the alleged murderer told the Sayreville Police Department he was going to speak to DiCarlo on October 30, 2005, stating “he would be contacting the Medical Examiner’s Office for any further information that they may need.” (emphasis added) (See 450) Hmmmmm.  Is this where the cover-up begins?  Or did it begin on the evening of the 29^th of October 2005?

DICARLO KNOWINGLY AND PURPOSELY DOES NOT FOLLOW PROPER FORENSIC PRACTICE

DiCarlo offers no justification or explanation as to why he violated New Jersey law.  In Dr. DiCarlo’s breaking of the law, both Title 2C The New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice, and the Medical Examiner Act, Dr. DiCarlo does not explain why he broke the law.  For example, there is no explanation in any report produced by the Dr. DiCarlo and released to Carolyn or Bill under N.J. Open Public Records Act (OPRA) that explains why Dr. DiCarlo waited two days to “take charge” of Joyce’s body.  Carolyn and Bill were told by Dr. DiCarlo that they had the complete report-the Report of External Examination, that DiCarlo conducted on Joyce’s body.  Without a formal investigation by Dr. DiCarlo or the Sayreville Police Department-law enforcement, you will have to draw your own conclusions.  However, if Dr. DiCarlo is supposed to be conducting an investigation (read autopsy) of a suspicious death, what would a reasonable person conclude is suspicious here?  What other sections of the law or laws did Dr. DiCarlo knowingly and purposely violate?  Read on.

CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION NOT CONDUCTED

Dr. DiCarlo failed to conduct a crime scene investigation.  The  New Jersey State Medical Examiner Act (52:17B-87. Notification of county medical examiner and prosecutor) requires that when a suspicious death is reported, as it was in this case, the Medical Examiner is required to conduct a crime scene investigation and to immediately take control of the deceased’s body.  Regarding actions at the crime scene, it states,

 “He shall fully investigate the essential facts concerning the medical causes of death and take the names and addresses of as many witnesses thereto as may be practicable to obtain, and, before leaving the premises shall reduce such facts, as he may deem necessary to writing and files the same in his office and which shall be made available to the county prosecutor at his request.” 

No one from the Medical Examiner’s office went to the crime scene.  Dr. DiCarlo did not fully investigate the essential facts concerning the medical causes of death.  Dr. DiCarlo did not take the names and addresses of any witnesses before leaving the premises since neither he nor a representative from his office went to the premises.  According to his own report, Dr. DiCarlo only interviewed one person regarding Joyce’s suspicious death; the rest of his information was derived from medical records received from Joyce’s family, and the Sayreville Police Department Report of Investigation, of various dates.  Dr. DiCarlo never interviewed either Carolyn Ausley or Bill Strouse, who were the individuals whom Dr. DiCarlo knew filed the suspicious death complaint/charge.  Dr. DiCarlo’s “Summary of the Case”, completed in January 2006, makes a reference to the Sayreville Police Department Report indicating that there was no report of abuse on file with, you guessed, the Sayreville Police Department.  While this may be true, Dr. DiCarlo had in his possession at this time, as did the Sayreville Police Department, an August 2, 2005, email from one of Joyce’s daughters emphatically stating that both she and Joyce “were abused by him mentally, physically and emotionally.” (See 267) So here again Dr. DiCarlo deliberately excludes information that could be harmful to the alleged murderer.  Why would Dr. DiCarlo slant the information in a certain direction?  According to his own Report of External Examination, though he requested the Prosecutor’s Office to conduct an investigation, Dr. DiCarlo never questioned why such investigation-required by (New Jersey State Medical Examiner Act 52:17B-86.c. Investigation of deaths; causes), was never conducted by the Honorable Bruce Kaplan.  Now isn’t that strange?

Some background.  According to Sayreville Police Department reports, Joyce was officially pronounced dead by a Hospice Nurse who, after receiving a call from the alleged murderer, arrived at the scene, at 1813 hours on the evening of October 29, 2005.  The alleged murderer reported Joyce’s death occurred sometime between 1615-1700 hours, that evening.  According to their report of investigation, the Sayreville Police Department was called around 1822 hours.  We’ll get into why the alleged murderer waited more than an hour to call for help a little later.  Makes you wonder, doesn’t it?

Regarding the Medical Examiner’s failure to conduct a crime scene investigation.  As required by the New Jersey State Medical Examiner Act section cited above, the Medical Examiner’s Office must conduct a crime scene investigation whenever a suspicious death is reported.  When the death of Joyce B. (Strouse) Sauter was initially and officially reported by her primary care-giver, over 60 minutes after she died, it was recorded as “no foul play” by the Sayreville Police Department (Initial Incident Report 5021782 18:22:00) October 29, 2008), and her body was subsequently released to family, who had Joyce’s body transferred to a funeral home for immediate cremation the next morning.  As you can read, there is no indication in that police incident report that the Sayreville Police Department even inquired why there was over an hours delay in reporting the death of Joyce.  What would a reasonable person think as to why an alleged murderer waited an hour before he reported her death to anyone?

A significant and suspicious delay occurred in advising family members of their sister’s death.  Approximately 2 ½ hours after Joyce’s official death pronouncement (3 ½ hours after her actual death), Joyce’s brother Bill was notified by his niece, that his sister had died earlier in the evening.  When asked, Bill’s niece had no explanation as to why she waited from 1700 hours until 2030 hours to notify family of Joyce’s death.  Why wait that long to notify the family?  Did the alleged murderer tell her when to make the call?  Was she afraid of the questions that might be asked, ones she would have difficulty answering?  Did she anticipate that a call would be made to law enforcement authorities regarding Joyce’s death?  Guess what?  Bill immediately reported a suspicious death to law enforcement authorities.  When notified by the Sayreville Police Department that the death was now considered “suspicious”, the Medical Examiners Office followed the New Jersey State Medical Examiner Act by contacting the Prosecutor’s Office and telling the Prosecutors Office that the Prosecutors Office must conduct a mandatory investigation and telling the Sayreville Police Department to secure Joyce’s body (New Jersey State Medical Examiner Act 52:17B-87), and conduct and investigation (again, see 78).  The investigation by both the Medical Examiner’s Office (Dr. DiCarlo) and the Prosecutor (Bruce Kaplan) at this point is mandatory, not discretionary.  See the section on Bruce Kaplan, Middlesex County Prosecutor, who refused to conduct the mandatory investigation, a critical and deliberate decision to violate the law.  . 

The Medical Examiner’s Office failed to follow the law once a suspicious death was reported.  Following the report of a suspicious death by Bill to the Sayreville Police Department and by the Sayreville Police Department to the Medical Examiner’s Office, the Medical Examiner’s Office needed to know where Joyce’s body was and asked the Sayreville Police Department to locate it. 

According to the Sayreville Police Department’s Report of Investigation dated October 29, 2005, two officers, Det Jeffrey Sprague and PTL Jamie Sztukowski, returned to the place of Joyce’s suspicious death on the evening of her death, at 2313 hours, to ask family where Joyce’s body was taken.  After awakening Raymond J. Sauter, Joyce’s husband and the alleged murderer, Det Jeffrey Sprague and PTL Jamie Sztukowski obtained the name and address of the funeral home and left.  There is no indication in official police reports that any attempt was made to establish a crime scene and conduct a crime scene investigation.  Why is that?  At this point, the Sayreville Police Department knows they are investigating a suspicious death.  Why would they purposely and knowingly not initiate a crime scene investigation?  More to come on that in a future installment, regarding the Sayreville Police Department.

POSSIBLE BLUE WALL CONNECTION

Because the alleged murderer, a former police officer, previously worked in Middlesex County witha local Police Department, it is highly probable that he knew Det Jeffrey Sprague and PTL Jamie Sztukowski, and they must have extended the alleged murderer some professional, blue wall courtesy, and declined to establish a crime scene and conduct a crime scene investigation.  Likewise, according to their Report of Investigation (see 70) dated 10-29-05, they deliberately did not ask the alleged murderer any questions regarding the allegations against him.  Yet how else would a reasonable person explain why a crime scene was not established and a crime scene investigation not begun?  How convenient for the alleged murderer and the Sayreville Police Department.  One wonders how that conversation went, blue wall and all?  What about police protocol? 

The Sayreville Police Department would have us believe that the alleged murderer simply gave them the name and address of the funeral home and then went back to bed.  Surely the alleged murderer would have asked some questions and not simply given the name and address of the funeral home where Joyce was transferred.  Wouldn’t the alleged murderer have a few questions as to why the police are back out at such a late hour making this inquiry?  Isn’t the alleged murderer at all curious about what is the need to know and why?  Oh, that’s right, the alleged murderer, you might recall, is a former Police Officer.  Do you think they knew each other?  Do you think they had a conversation that is not recorded in the police report?  More on this when we visit the Sayreville Police Department’s investigation reports’ chapter down the road.  And where was Bruce Kaplan’s office, the County Prosecutor, who had been notified earlier by the County Medical Examiner’s Office, of a suspicious death?  And where was a representative of the Medical Examiners Office?  Back to Dr. DiCarlo and the County Medical Examiner’s Office’s decision not to conduct a crime scene investigation where a suspicious death was alleged to have occurred.

What would a crime scene investigator look for at Joyce’s residence, the location where Joyce died a suspicious death?  The allegation made against the alleged murderer to the New Jersey State Police, the South Amboy Police, and finally the Sayreville Police Department, and subsequently to the Medical Examiner’s Office and the Prosecutors Office, was that Joyce was starved, dehydrated and/or over-medicated to death; suffocation was added a short while later.  Following a long, drawn out court fight in the NJ Superior Court, custody of Joyce’s four specimens taken by Dr. DiCarlo during the External Examination were awarded to Carolyn Ausley.  An independent analysis of the specimens by an accredited lab and reviewed by a Forensic Pathologist concluded that :

 “Based on the additional testing performed at my request on the very specimens that Dr. DiCarlo obtained but never tested, indicates that Joyce was dehydrated and was in a prolonged fasting and or starvation condition at the time of her death. How these additional findings impact her cause and manner of death rulings is unknown to the extent that a complete autopsy, toxicology workup, and investigation was not performed by Dr. DiCarlo prior to his rulings in this case.  These additional findings certainly call into question the thoroughness of Dr. DiCarlo’s work product and determinations he subsequently makes on cases within his jurisdiction.” —Michael J. Berkland, D.O.,  Forensic Pathologist, March 4, 2008

ALLEGED MURDERER OBJECTS TO RELEASE OF FOUR SPECIMENS

Only one person objected to the release of the four specimens taken from Joyce’s body during Dr. DiCarlo’s External Examination.  That person was the alleged murderer.  In NJ Superior Court, the alleged murderer was the only one who objected to the release and complete testing of the specimens.  One wonders why he would object if he had nothing to hide? As noted by NJ Superior Court Judge Travis L. Francis in his official opinion (Docket NO.: C-223-06 and A-2765-06-T5) the alleged murderer indicated absolutely no interest in the specimens until the Plaintiff, Carolyn Ausley, requested legal custody for additional testing.  It is interesting to note that the First Deputy Counsel for Middlesex County deliberately “mis-interpreted” their legal justification for not releasing the specimens, thus forcing Carolyn to obtain a court order when one was unnecessary.  This action now goes to covering the actions of Dr. DiCarlo by his Middlesex County legal representative, Mr. Aronowitz.  County public servants were now committed to their course of action-a course of action that would lead  Mr. Eric Aronowitz, the Middlesex County First Deputy Counsel to falsely swear (False Swearing 2C:28-2a) in the NJ Superior Court that an autopsy had been completed by Dr. DiCarlo and all necessary testing had been conducted by Dr. DiCarlo on the specimens he removed from Joyce’s body during an External Examination-when he knew that was untrue.  More to come in a later chapter about Mr. Eric M. Aronowitz, the First Deputy County Counsel for Middlesex County, and his violations of criminal law.

The mandatory crime scene investigation, required by law, was not performed by law enforcement nor medical examiner nor prosecutor personnel.  Of course, the Sayreville Police Department and the Medical Examiner and the Prosecutor, being the experienced crime solvers they are, under these particular circumstances, would have known what to look for at a suspicious death crime scene.  For example, the Medical Examiner representative (as well as other investigative personnel) would look for food in the form of special diets for cancer patients from her doctor, her dietitian, or her nutritionist-maybe even something from the National Cancer Institute or the American Cancer Society.  They would have looked for energy drinks used to keep fluids in Joyce’s body; they would have looked for a written pain medication management program prescribed by her doctor, the hospital, or the Hospice Team, so that she was not medicated to the point of hallucinating and disorientation, as in fact, she was.  They might even have looked for a pillow that could have been used to smother Joyce.  Certainly if the Medical Examiner’s Office conducted the mandatory crime scene investigation they would have known what to look for, based on the allegations made.  And the same goes for the Sayreville Police Department and the Prosecutor’s Office.  But that’s only if they had conducted a crime scene investigation-which they did not.  A crime scene investigation was knowingly and purposely not conducted, with the intent to protect the alleged murderer.  As a result, any evidence that could have implicated the alleged murderer, or even exonerated the alleged murderer, was “lost”.

STATE MEDICAL EXAMINER ACT VIOLATIONS BY DICARLO

Dr. DiCarlo knowingly and purposely did not comply with NJ State requirements. Dr. DiCarlo failed in his efforts to maintain “proper forensic practice”.  The New Jersey Administrative Code, Title 13. Law and Public Safety Chapter 49 State Medical Examiner Subchapter 1. Autopsies, defines proper forensic practice. 

 “Proper Forensic Practice” consists of those procedures which are required to perform the mandated role of the medical examiner, which is to determine the cause and manner of death within a reasonable degree of medical probability; to identify and analyze evidence in criminal matters; to preserve organs for transplant and to otherwise preserve the public health.” (13:49-1.8 Definitions)

As already supported by direct and relevant evidence in Dr. DiCarlo’s Report of External Examination (See 74: Certification), Dr. DiCarlo waited two days before taking charge of Joyce’s body.  Dr. DiCarlo failed to conduct the mandatory autopsy.  Dr. DiCarlo, per statute, was required to perform a mandatory autopsy-which he decided not to do.  Had he completed the mandatory autopsy, the cause and manner of Joyce’s death would have been known beyond a reasonable doubt and almost the two years of subsequent litigation in Superior Court would have been unnecessary.  Dr. DiCarlo was required, by the Medical Examiner Act, to conduct a crime scene investigation following receipt of a report of a suspicious death.  Dr. DiCarlo knowingly and purposely did not conduct a crime scene investigation.  Why?

DICARLO KNOWINGLY RELEASES JOYCE’S BODY TO THE PERSON ALLEGED TO HAVE MURDERED HER

Dr. DiCarlo also permitted direct and relevant evidence to be destroyed prior to completion of his investigation.  The New Jersey State Medical Examiner Act required the Medical Examiner’s Office to conduct a crime scene investigation.  As a result of not conducting a crime scene investigation, significant evidence was lost, and an alleged murderer walks free today.  By releasing Joyce’s body to the alleged murderer, Dr. DiCarlo made it impossible to determine the manner and cause of Joyce’s death beyond a reasonable doubt.  The New Jersey State Medical Examiner Act (52:17B-88 findings; report; autopsy; conclusions; copy to closest surviving relative; transportation of body) requires that whenever a suspicious death is reported, the cause and manner of death can only be confirmed beyond a reasonable doubt by conducting an autopsy.  In violation of the Medical Examiner Act, Dr. DiCarlo deliberately did not conduct the mandatory autopsy.

In this particular case, a Medical Examiner autopsy was required but not conducted by Dr. DiCarlo.  The NJ Administrative Code (NJAC) 13:49-1.5, Medical examiner autopsies, states

“(a) Medical examiner autopsies shall be performed only in conjunction with investigations of reportable deaths in order to establish the cause of death; to provide medical facts upon which to base a determination of the manner of death ….” 

According to the New Jersey State Medical Examiner Act, a suspicious death, which this is, is a reportable death.  Unlike an External Examination, which Dr. DiCarlo performed,

 “the  autopsy standard for …suspicious deaths and deaths with no visible anatomic cause shall include complete inspection, removal and dissection of the cranial compartment and contents, the neck viscera and tongue, the thoracic, abdominal and pelvic compartments and viscera, and any additional dissections which may be indicated by the circumstances of death; and shall include the collection and preservation of body tissues for toxicological and microscopic examination and any additional examinations which may be required by the nature of the circumstances.”

Dr. DiCarlo did not want to know the true manner and cause of death beyond a reasonable doubt.  There is no doubt that had Dr. DiCarlo conducted the mandatory autopsy, he would have determined the cause and manner of death beyond a reasonable doubt.  There is no doubt that if Dr. DiCarlo kept custody of Joyce’s body until all questions were answered, he would have determined the cause and manner of Joyce’s death beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no doubt had Dr. DiCarlo conducted the mandatory autopsy he would have been able to support or reject the allegations against the alleged murderer, Raymond J. Sauter. 

What would a reasonable person conclude that Dr. DiCarlo was afraid he would discover and determine?  What is it that Dr. DiCarlo did not want to know for sure?  Is it reasonable to wonder why Dr. DiCarlo did not conduct an autopsy when he knew it was mandatory following a report of suspicious death?  It is also important to note that Dr. DiCarlo released Joyce’s body to the alleged murderer within hours of completing his External Examination and long before he had the toxicology results back from the NJ State Toxicology Lab and noted he received them on November 29, 2005 (See 82).  What would have happened if testing came back in support of foul play, and more evidence was needed?  Dr. DiCarlo did not worry about what the tests would show, because he knew what the outcome of the testing would be based upon the tests he requested be completed on just two of the four specimens.  A reasonable person would easily conclude that Dr. DiCarlo used his office to prevent the autopsy from taking place, after all, he is the one who knowingly released Joyce’s body to the alleged murderer.  In addition to everything else, this is Official Misconduct.

WHAT DOES THE NJ STATE MEDICAL EXAMINER SAY ABOUT CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATIONS?

Let’s go back to the crime scene and Dr. DiCarlo’s failure to establish and investigate the crime scene.  We find this statement by the New Jersey State Medical Examiner, in his web site,

 “Tremendous importance should be placed in the proper steps and procedures taken at the scene of a death.  How a death investigation is handled at these crucial initial stages, may later affect the administration of justice and future criminal proceedings, the adjudication of estates, and certification of death.” 

Using his public office, Dr. DiCarlo knowingly and purposely mishandled Joyce’s suspicious death investigation, with the intent of protecting the alleged murderer and to hinder his own prosecution .  This entire situation reads like something out of Crime Scene Basics 101.  Joyce had cancer, diagnosed in February 2005.  Joyce’s legally designated care giver was the alleged murderer.  Sometime after June 24, 2005, Joyce began losing weight.  It is estimated that just before her death in October Joyce may have weighed as little as 70-75 pounds, down from 120-125 the end of June.  According to Dr. DiCarlo’s “Summary of Case”, on November 2, 2005,  one of Joyce’s doctors gave her six months to live “Based on my clinical expertise and in consultation with the Central New Jersey hospice  Interdisciplinary Team, I certify that the above-named patient (Joyce) has a terminal illness with a prognosis of six month or less if the illness runs its course.” (See 24) Joyce had previously been given eight months to live and beat that.  How did Joyce become so emaciated?  So thin?  So dehydrated?  Why was she disoriented to time, place, and person, hallucinating and unable to speak?

Dr. DiCarlo would have discovered, had he properly handled Joyce’s death investigation which mandated an autopsy, that the care she had received was negligent if not criminal.  Joyce was being cared for by the alleged murderer, who at one point told Bill Strouse:

“The plan for Joyce is to die.” 

Who was responsible for Joyce’s care?  At another point, the alleged murderer commented to several family members that, “Once this is over with, I’m selling the house and getting out of here.”  Joyce’s Living Will instructed the alleged murderer to provide her with all the care necessary to sustain her life as long as it did not involve extraordinary measures such as “tubes” and “wires”.  Joyce’s expectation, according to that official, legal document, was to live as long as she could.  Joyce also made it clear to Carolyn Ausley, her younger sister, that she wanted to live as long as possible.

Back to taking immediate control of the deceased’s body.  So, a suspicious death was reported to the Sayreville Police Department around 2030 hours, by the decedents brother, Bill; the Sayreville Police Department reported the suspicious death shortly thereafter to the Medical Examiner and Prosecutors Office; and the Medical Examiner’s Office reported the suspicious death of Joyce to the Prosecutors Office a short while after that, directing the Prosecutor to conduct a suspicious death investigation.  All this on the evening of October 29, 2005.  All of this documented in the Sayreville Police Department’s Reports of Investigation and in Dr. DiCarlo’s Report of External Examination, previously cited.

Dr. DiCarlo failed to take immediate charge of Joyce’s body.  What does “immediate” mean and what would a reasonable person think immediate meant?  A reasonable person would conclude that the word “immediate”, which is the word used in the New Jersey State Medical Examiner Act, means “right away” or “right now”, or “instantly” or “without an interval of time”.  Remember, the Medical Examiner’s Office, in violation of the New Jersey State Medical Examiner Act, did not conduct a crime scene investigation and did not send anyone out to the residence where Joyce died once a suspicious death was reported.  Following her death, Joyce’s body was moved to a local funeral home by the alleged murderer for cremation the very next morning.   A suspicious death was reported at 2030 hours when Joyce’s brother, Bill Strouse, was informed of his sister’s suspicious death by his niece.  If the New Jersey State Medical Examiner Act requires the Medical Examiner to immediately take control of the deceased’s body, a reasonable person would conclude this would happen within the hour or so following the report of a suspicious death, if not right away.  After all, the decedent is now the main body of evidence.  Why belabor this point?  Joyce died on the evening of October 29, 2005.  In violation of the New Jersey State Medical Examiner Act, the Medical Examiner’s Office did not take custody of her body until October 31, 2005, almost two days later.  Why wait two days?  Why knowingly and purposely break the law?  Initiating and completing the investigation would answer that question.

MANDATORY AUTOPSY NOT CONDUCTED BY DICARLO

Dr. DiCarlo failed to conduct the mandatory autopsy following the report of a suspicious death.  In addition to his own admission, the fact that Dr. DiCarlo did not conduct the mandatory autopsy is also supported by attorney Jack Venturi in his letter of  January 5, 2006 ( See 648-649 ).  In this letter Mr. Venturi reports that in an extensive conversation he had with Dr. DiCarlo, Dr. DiCarlo informed him that an autopsy was not conducted on the body of Joyce B. (Strouse) Sauter, even though one was required by law.  The New Jersey State Medical Examiner Act requires that when a suspicious death is reported, an autopsy is mandatory.  For example, a number of autopsies were conducted by the Middlesex County Medical Examiner’s Office for a variety of reasons, including one suspicious death (SEE  A, B, C, D, E, F ).    If Middlesex County can conduct autopsies for car wreck, multiple gunshot wounds to the head, and drownings, why can’t they conduct an autopsy when the suspicious death of Joyce was reported?  The purpose of the autopsy in a suspicious death case is to “determine the cause of death beyond a reasonable doubt”.  The Medical Examiner does not have discretionary authority to change the law; an autopsy must be conducted.  At this point, by his own admission and documentation, Dr. DiCarlo only conducted what is known as an “External Examination”.  Included in the External Examination was the removal of four specimens, which later became the center of a NJ Superior Court custody decision and subsequent toxicology testing.  So why did Dr. DiCarlo knowingly and purposely choose to violate the law and not conduct the mandatory autopsy?

Let’s examine in greater detail the Title 2C New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice violations committed by Dr. DiCarlo.  Remember now, Deputy Attorney General Denise Hollingsworth said these alleged violations had no merit (See 219–220 and 252).  Ms. Hollingsworth reviewed several hundred (669) pages of direct evidence submitted in support of our allegations and still concluded Dr. DiCarlo did nothing wrong.  If the law says you must conduct an autopsy when a suspicious death is reported, and by your own hand you provide direct and relevant evidence that you failed to conduct an autopsy in accordance with the law, doesn’t that have merit under the law? 

Several of these violations were specified earlier, and though there are others that are applicable, we’ll focus only on those previously noted.  One of the critical 2C Criminal Code violations committed by Dr. DiCarlo pertains directly to his Falsifying or Tampering with Records 2C:21-4a.  This is a critical violation for several reasons.  First, Dr. DiCarlo acknowledges that he broke the law by admitting that he completed only an External Examination on the body of Joyce B. (Strouse) Sauter, denying that he completed an autopsy.  As recently as December 27, 2007, in response to another request for a copy of the autopsy report by Carolyn Ausley, Dr. DiCarlo states that only an External Examination was completed. (See 6–7; 34–35; 32–33) This direct evidence of admission is in addition to the direct evidence of the External Examination Reportitself.  So no autopsy was completed.  Dr. DiCarlo thus acknowledges he knowingly and purposely violated the NJ Medical Examiner Act and he acknowledges he violated Title 13 of the New Jersey Administrative Code.  This is some of the direct evidence that Deputy Attorney General Denise Hollingsworth concluded had “no merit”.

Circumstantial evidence suggests Dr. DiCarlo only conducted an External Examination to protect the alleged murderer from being investigated for the suspicious death of Joyce.  Deputy Attorney General Hollingsworth claims to have reported our allegations to the New Jersey State Board of Medical Examiners.  They too, according to Hollingsworth, chose not to take any action against Dr. DiCarlo.  According to the State Board of Medical Directors website, when a complaint is filed, it is always acknowledged and an outcome, however brief, is always reported to the complainant.  No such correspondence was ever received by Carolyn Ausley or Bill Strouse.  One may guess that there is plenty of corruption to go around New Jersey government.  But we digress.  Dr. DiCarlo put his career on the line for the alleged murderer, a former police officer, it appears, with this action.  Why would Dr. DiCarlo do that?

Some background.  As we already know, Joyce’s reported suspicious death went uninvestigated, in violation of the law, by Assistant Medical Examiner, Dr. DiCarlo; he also failed to conduct a crime scene investigation; he failed to conduct the mandatory autopsy; he failed to ensure that the Sayreville Police Department and the Prosecutors Office conducted and completed suspicious death investigations; he released the main source of evidence (Joyce’s body), based on the allegations, to the person alleged to have murdered her; he released the evidence prior to receiving a return lab report from the NJ State Toxicology Lab; in providing justification for changing the manner and the cause of death for certificates of death for Joyce, Dr. DiCarlo certified false information; he completed only an External Examination; and, he requested testing of only two of four specimens taken from Joyce’s body during his External Examination, leading to a long and drawn out civil case in the New Jersey Superior Court for specimen custody and complete testing.  All of this is supported by direct and relevant evidence provided in the form of correspondence by Middlesex County public servants.  Remember, though all these violations occurred and are well-documented, Dep Attorney General Denise Hollingsworth said they had no merit.

DICARLO FALSIFIED JOYCE’S CERTIFICATES OF DEATH

What does 2C:21-4a require?  What records were falsified?  It is alleged that Dr. DiCarlo falsified information on a certificate of death applicable to Joyce, with the intent of showing a manner and cause of death that would support the alleged murderer’s defense and appeal in the NJ Superior Court, Appellate Division, that Joyce’s death was caused by cancer and nothing more.  Signed and certified by Dr. DiCarlo, with a witness to his signature, Dr. DiCarlo purposely and knowingly falsely certified information on a public record.  This is direct evidence and is uncontestable.  Dr. DiCarlo’s actions were material and he accomplished what he intended to accomplish.  Dr. DiCarlo made no attempt to retract any of his actions or certifications.  As a direct result of Dr. DiCarlo actions, Carolyn Ausley and Bill Strouse suffered irreparable harm.

What does it take to change the manner and cause of death on a certificate of death?  The appropriate official, in this case Dr. DiCarlo, must certify that certain actions, or results, or tests conducted subsequent to the issuance of the initial certificate of death, now enable the Medical Examiner to conclude what the “true” cause or manner of death is, beyond a reasonable doubt.  In January 2006, the manner of death was reported to be “pending investigation”.  In January 2006, the same certificate of death shows a blank (no cause of death listed) on the certificate for cause of death.  On January 27, 2006, the manner of death was changed to “natural”.  (This too, is false because toxicology results were received from the NJ State Tox Lab by Dr. DiCarlo on November 29, 2005.)  In other words, the toxicology investigation was completed at the time Dr. DiCarlo reported them to be “pending”.  On January 27, 2006, the cause of death was changed to “bi-lateral, non-small cell carcinoma of lungs with lymph node involvement and metastases”. 

Please remember that to determine the cause and manner of death beyond a reasonable doubt in a suspicious death case, an autopsy is MANDATORY.  And Dr. DiCarlo knowingly and purposely chose not to conduct the mandatory autopsy.  Back to the certificate of death falsification. 

DICARLO FALSIFIES THE FORM

In order to make the change official, to change the public record on Joyce’s certificate of death, Dr. DiCarlo now had to certify the new manner and cause, and he also had to state what the basis was for his new conclusion.  New Jersey has a form for this purpose.  The form is REG-42A.  In this particular case, the form appears to be properly completed and is certified by Dr. DiCarlo and a witness.  Here’s the clincher.  Section 2 on the form provides space for Dr. DiCarlo to list the specific reasons justifying his changing this public record. 

In this block Dr. DiCarlo lists three reasons as his justification for changing the manner and cause of death of Joyce B. (Strouse) Sauter.  First, Dr. DiCarlo certifies that evidence taken from the (non-existent) autopsy of Joyce led him to change the manner and cause of death (See 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88; especially 88, Section 2).  Second, Dr. DiCarlo also certifies that toxicology results also led him to change the manner and cause of death for Joyce (See 88, Section 2).  Finally, Dr. DiCarlo indicates that histology (a study of tissue specimens, usually on a glass slide) led him to change the manner and cause of death; it is true that Joyce’s medical records showed a history of cancer treatment.  Two out of three certifications are false.  Please remember, however, that when a suspicious death is reported, the cause and manner of death can only be determined by conducting an autopsy.  Dr. DiCarlo lied.  As we know, Dr. DiCarlo admitted he did not conduct an autopsy, only an External Examination (See 34 – 35 and 74).  And as the NJ State Toxicology Lab results show, there is no reference or conclusion that supports changing the manner or cause of death from pending toxicology to cancer (See 82).  Big time lies.  What has to be proved, as far as 2C:21-4a is concerned?

CRIMINAL ALLEGATION AGAINST DR. DICARLO

FALSIFICATION OF CERTIFICATE OF DEATH

 “A person commits a crime if he falsifies, destroys, removes, conceals any writing or record, or utters any writing or record knowing that it contains a false statement or information, with a purpose to deceive or injure anyone or to conceal any wrongdoing.”

Two elements must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be indicted for this crime.  First, it must be proven that Dr. DiCarlo falsified any writing or record or uttered any writing or record knowing it contained a false statement or information.  Second, it must be proven that Dr. DiCarlo acted with a purpose to deceive or injure anyone or conceal any wrongdoing.

The statute defines writing as including printing or any other method of recording information.  In this case, the certificate of death and the change to the certificate of death are both writings and are both used to record information.  Dr. DiCarlo took information he previously provided for the certificate of death and, based on other information he fabricated, made significant written changes to the certificate of death.

According to the statute, a writing or record is uttered when it is offered, provided, or displayed to another without regard to whether it is accepted, with the knowledge that it contained a false statement or information.  Even though Dr. DiCarlo knew he had not conducted an autopsy, he certified he did.  Even though Dr. DiCarlo knew that the Toxicology results from the NJ State Toxicology Lab did not confirm cancer in any of specimens, Dr. DiCarlo certified they did.  Once certified by DiCarlo, the certificate of death was changed to reflect a new manner and cause of death.  The purpose of this action by DiCarlo was to help protect the alleged murderer from investigation and to help justify his knowing and purposeful decision not to conduct the mandatory autopsy.  Dr. DiCarlo’s action was intended to conceal wrongdoing on the alleged murderer’s part, which was the planned murder of Joyce.

Dr. DiCarlo knew that his certifications were false at the time he made them.  Clearly, since Dr. DiCarlo knew that no autopsy had been conducted and since Dr. DiCarlo knew that the results of the toxicology report did not reflect cancer as a cause or manner of death before he certified the certificate of death, he was knowledgeable that such certifications were false at the time he made them.

Dr. DiCarlo, using the authority of his public office, knowingly and purposely took this action.  Dr. DiCarlo knew that if he made these false statements that his action would mean that the cause and manner of death on the certificates of death would be changed.  Likewise, he knew that making these specific changes would support the alleged murderer’s defense that the cause of death was cancer and therefore, the alleged murderer would not be a suspect in Joyce’s suspicious death.  DiCarlo also knew that if the manner and cause of death were listed as cancer, this would add considerable weight and support to justify his deliberate decision not to conduct the mandatory autopsy.  Using his office, DiCarlo was in a prime position of power to aid law enforcement in the broadening deception.  He succeeded.  Dr. DiCarlo obviously knew that the law enforcement community would circle the wagons and protect all involved-which is what they have done to date.

The alleged murderer’s attorneys used the falsified certificate of death (one of three by the time the case was heard in Superior Court, Appellate Division), even though two others were available.  As noted in the NJ Superior Court, Appellate Division, this falsified certificate of death, now altered by Dr. DiCarlo’s actions, was used by the alleged murderer’s attorney in the case (though other certificates of death were and are available) as support for his defense not to release the specimens for independent testing and analysis.  Dr. DiCarlo is protecting not only the alleged murderer but also himself.  Why else would Dr. DiCarlo falsify this public record, a certificate of death, when he had previously gone on record as certifying that no autopsy had been conducted on Joyce?  Remember that Deputy Attorney General Denise Hollingsworth, who had all of this direct evidence, knowingly and purposely concluded that there was no merit to this charge, with the intent to protect the public servants involved in this case (See 219–220 and 252).  Why would Hollingsworth do that?  There is more than an appearance of the blue wall at work here.

TAMPERING WITH PHYSICAL EVIDENCE

DiCarlo also tampered with physical evidence. The next Title 2C New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice violated by Dr. DiCarlo involves tampering with physical evidence:  Tampering With Physical Evidence 2C:28-6(2).  The statute reads as follows:

 “A person commits a crime . . . if, believing that an official proceeding or investigation is pending or about to be instituted, he: (1) Makes, devises, prepares, presents, offers or uses any article, object, record, document or thing of physical substance knowing it to be false, and with purpose to mislead a public servant who is engaged in such proceeding or investigation.”

The three elements that must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt include (1) that Dr. DiCarlo believed that an official proceeding or investigation was pending or about to be instituted; (2) that Dr. DiCarlo purposely made, devised, prepared, offered, or used an article, object, record, document or thing of physical substance, knowing it to be false; (3)  that Dr. DiCarlo’s purpose in making, devising, preparing, presenting, offering or using the falsely certified certificates of death was to mislead a public servant who was engaged in such proceeding or investigation.

Dr. DiCarlo falsified a certificate of death, as documented above with considerable direct evidence. Regarding element one, Dr. DiCarlo knew that Carolyn Ausley and Bill Strouse had been closely following the activities of the Sayreville Police Department, the Middlesex County Prosecutors Office, and the Middlesex County Medical Examiner’s Office, as documented via numerous phone calls and letters written by them over the several months between Joyce’s death and the falsification of the certificate of death.  Dr. DiCarlo knew that Carolyn and Bill alleged that their sister Joyce had been killed by starvation, dehydration, over-medication and/or suffocation.  You will note that there is no mention of an interview with either Carolyn or Bill in Dr. DiCarlo’s Report of External Examination.

Dr. DiCarlo ignored numerous attempts by Carolyn Ausley and Bill Strouse to discuss the case.  DiCarlo was also aware that both had left a number of phone messages and written a number of letters seeking information regarding the suspicious death investigation, which seemed to be going nowhere.  Dr. DiCarlo is also aware that the attorney Carolyn and Bill hired to seek information (Jack Venturi) turned out to be a personal and professional friend of Dr. DiCarlo’s; Jack Venturi is now implicated as well.  When reported by the Sayreville Police Department that a suspicious death was being investigated, Dr. DiCarlo’s office knew that his office had directed the Prosecutors Office to conduct a mandatory suspicious death investigation.  Thus, he knew that an official proceeding or investigation was not only pending but was ongoing.  Likewise, with all the questions being asked by Carolyn and Bill, and all the letters being sent throughout the law enforcement community by Carolyn and Bill, Dr. DiCarlo knew or should have known that an investigation of the investigative process of county public servants would be pursued by Carolyn and Bill.  Dr. DiCarlo never interviewed with Bill Strouse or Carolyn Ausley as part of his investigation, even though it was made clear by the Sayreville Police Department that they alleged a suspicious death of their sister.  Why would Dr. DiCarlo not interview Carolyn and Bill?

Regarding element two, Dr. DiCarlo purposely altered the certificate of death, a public record (See 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88), for the express purpose of having it used in defense of alleged murderer, and to provide support for not conducting the mandatory autopsy.  Dr. DiCarlo knew that Carolyn and Bill contended that Joyce’s cause and manner of deathhad nothing to do with cancer.  Dr. DiCarlo knew that without conducting the mandatory autopsy, he could not, beyond a reasonable doubt, certify the true cause and manner of Joyce’s death.  Though he did not have an autopsy report, a certificate of death could suffice in a court of law to act as a buffer or reasonable substitute when coupled with the credibility of the Medical Examiner’s Office behind him.  Dr. DiCarlo took a great risk betting that neither Carolyn or Bill would obtain a copy of his false justification and certification document. 

Regarding element three.  As it turned out, the certificate of death DiCarlo tampered with was used by the alleged murderer in NJ Superior Court Appellate Division, as an exhibit for the Defense.  Though a more recent one was available at the time of the court appearance, it is interesting that DiCarlo would select this particular certificate of death to provide for the alleged murderer’s defense.  The credibility of the Office of the Medical Examiner, offering a certified document for evidence, was overwhelming in court, leading the court to discount claims by Carolyn and Bill that an autopsy had not been completed.  DiCarlo knew he had falsified the justification for the change to the manner and cause of death; he knew that the manner and cause of death on the certificate of death releasable to authorized personnel would reflect exactly what he wanted it to reflect, thus offering protection for the alleged murderer and himself. 

Clearly, Dr. DiCarlo knew and believed that an official proceeding or investigation was pending or underway.  And Dr. DiCarlo knew the document he tampered with would be used in NJ Superior Court by the alleged murderer, a defendant, in the case to obtain Joyce’s specimens for examination.  Truly, Dr. DiCarlo’ s intent was to mislead the court and all others into believing that the certificate of death he tampered with was legitimate and provided the protection for him and the alleged murderer that he desired; he succeeded.  Neither Dr. DiCarlo nor the Middlesex County Counsel, Eric M. Aronowitz, ever produced an autopsy report.  The fact that he was successful in his efforts is evidenced by the need to present this information in this venue, as Dr. DiCarlo was not charged individually or as part of a corruption investigation or cover-up, neither was the alleged murderer.  Remember that Deputy Attorney General Denise Hollingsworth, having all of this direct evidence, concluded that there was no merit to this charge.  How is that possible?  There is more than an appearance of the blue wall at work here. 

DICARLO COMMITS OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT

Dr. DiCarlo is also alleged to have committed OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT, a crime of the second degree, as a public servant in his official capacity as an Assistant Medical Examiner with the Middlesex County Medical Examiner’s Office.  The New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice provides in Official Misconduct 2C:30-2 that a public servant is guilty of misconduct when, with purpose to obtain a benefit for himself or another or to injure or to deprive another of a benefit:

 “a. He commits an act relating to his office but constituting an unauthorized exercise of his official functions, knowing that such act is unauthorized or he is committing such act in an unauthorized manner; or”

 “b. He knowingly refrains from performing a duty which is imposed upon him by law or is clearly inherent in the nature of his office.”

 As an Assistant Medical Examiner, it is inherent in the nature of his office that he must conduct autopsies under certain circumstances.  These duties are imposed upon him by law.  The law imposing these duties upon Dr. DiCarlo is the New Jersey Medical Examiner Act, 52:17B and the New Jersey Administrative Code 13:49.

For Dr. DiCarlo to be guilty of Official Misconduct, the following three elements must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.  First, Dr. DiCarlo must have been a public servant at the relevant time.  Second, he must have knowingly refrained from performing a duty imposed upon him by law or which is clearly inherent in the nature of his office.  Third, Dr. DiCarlo’s purpose in so acting was to benefit himself or another or to injure or deprive another of a benefit.

Regarding the first element, that Dr. DiCarlo was a public servant during the relevant time is uncontested and uncontestable.  Dr. DiCarlo was employed as the Assistant Medical Examiner for Middlesex County, NJ, for a number of years prior to October 29, 2005, and since then.  Dr. DiCarlo has, through his signature, certified many official documents on behalf of the Medical Examiner’s Office, Middlesex County, NJ.

Regarding the second element, Dr. DiCarlo knowingly refrained from performing a duty imposed upon him by law or which is clearly inherent in the nature of his office.  As an Assistant Medical Examiner, it is inherent in the nature of his office that Dr. DiCarlo conducts autopsies and medicolegal death investigations when necessary in accordance with the NJ State Medical Examiner Act.  Dr. DiCarlo has conducted numerous autopsies as an inherent part of his job.  In this particular case, Dr. DiCarlo knowingly and purposely refused to conduct the mandatory autopsy on a person whose death was determined to be suspicious by the Sayreville Police Department and the Middlesex County Medical Examiner’s Office. As noted by the New Jersey Office of the State Medical Examiner, in their web site, wherein deaths occur “under suspicious or unusual circumstances;” a medicolegal investigation must be conducted.  This means an autopsy.  The law does not permit a discretionary decision by the Medical Examiner’s office to not conduct an autopsy when the death is reported as suspicious.

Dr. DiCarlo also deliberately decided not to take immediate charge of the deceased’s body as required by the NJ State Medical Examiners Act, leaving her body in a private funeral home for two days.  Dr. DiCarlo did not establish a crime scene, nor did he conduct a crime scene investigation at the site where the suspicious death occurred.  Though directing the Prosecutors Office to conduct a suspicious death investigation, Dr. DiCarlo knowingly and purposely did not follow-up to ensure that the Prosecutors Office conducted and completed a criminal investigation into the suspicious death of Joyce-again, a mandatory initiative.  Dr. DiCarlo states on page #6 of his “Summary of Case”

“Investigator Ivan Scott of the Middlesex County Prosecutor’s Office monitored and reviewed the investigation of the death of Joyce Sauter.”

According to correspondence received by Carolyn Ausley from William Lamb of the Prosecutor’s Office, the Middlesex County Prosecutor’s Office denies any such monitoring or reviewing took place regarding the investigation of the suspicious death of Joyce B. (Strouse) Sauter.  So is DiCarlo lying or is Lamb lying.  Only one of them is telling the truth.

Dr. DiCarlo also failed to perform proper forensic practice, by releasing the body of the decedent to the alleged murderer prior to completing his investigation, thus permitting the destruction (Joyce’s body was immediately cremated by the alleged murderer) of valuable evidence critical to determining the true cause and manner of Joyce’s death beyond a reasonable doubt. Dr. DiCarlo also released Joyce’s body prior to the receipt of the lab results (See 82) of the specimens sent to the NJ Toxicology Lab for testing and analysis.   Dr. DiCarlo also requested the testing of just two of the four specimens (See 82) he removed from Joyce, neither of which could have indicated if Joyce was starved or dehydrated—two of the allegations made by Carolyn Ausley and Bill Strouse (See 656–657).

Dr. DiCarlo refused to right an obvious wrong; his actions were intentional.  Though he had numerous opportunities to correctly and completely test all of the specimens over almost two years, he refused to do so.  Dr. DiCarlo never retracted his findings or conclusions.  Direct evidence shows that Dr. DiCarlo tampered with public records and falsely certified the manner and cause of death on certificates of death.  Through his legal representative, Dr. DiCarlo swore in NJ Superior Court, Appellate Division, that he conducted an autopsy (See 6–7).  In correspondence with Carolyn Ausley, he denied conducting an autopsy, admitting that he completed only an External Examination (See 34).  All of these duties were imposed upon him by law or were inherent in the nature of his office.

Regarding the third element, Dr. DiCarlo’s purpose in refraining from conducting the mandatory autopsy on Joyce B. (Strouse) Sauter was to benefit himself and another–the alleged murderer, who was alleged to have murdered Joyce, an elderly invalid, through starvation, dehydration, over-medication, and/or suffocation.  Dr. DiCarlo’s actions led to no autopsy being conducted on Joyce, thus the cause of death beyond a reasonable doubt could not be determined.  Dr. DiCarlo’s actions also aided himself in that he has not been prosecuted for his participation, and thus retains his job, income, family, and status in the community.  This may or may not have also been a pecuniary benefit of fostering and maintaining their close personal and/or professional relationship in the law enforcement community. 

According to the New Jersey State Medical Examiner Act, by not conducting the mandatory autopsy, it is impossible to determine the cause of death of Joyce beyond a reasonable doubt.  Dr. DiCarlo’s efforts also protect and benefit himself from criminal prosecution or professional administrative action from the New Jersey State Board of Medical Examiners or the National Association of Medical Examiners, and other professional certification organizations.  Also, by not conducting the autopsy and falsifying the certificate of death, Dr. DiCarlo deprived Carolyn Ausley and Bill Strouse-and the rest of the family-of the benefit of peace of mind of knowing the true cause and manner of Joyce’s death.

DICARLO HINDERS OWN APPREHENSION AND PROSECUTION

Dr. DiCarlo took knowing and purposeful action that resulted in him hindering his own apprehension or prosecution.  According to the New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice, 2C:29-3b, Hindering One’s Own Apprehension or Prosecution, a person acts purposely with respect to the nature of his conduct or a result thereof if it his conscious object to engage in conduct of that nature or to cause such a result.  Purpose is a condition of the mind that can only be determined by inferences from conduct, words, or acts.  Dr. DiCarlo is charged (by Carolyn and Bill) with the offense of hindering his own apprehension or prosecution in that he is alleged to have refrained from fully carrying out his duties and responsibilities as the Assistant Medical Examiner for Middlesex County regarding the suspicious death investigation of Joyce B. (Strouse) Sauter. 

In violation of the New Jersey State Medical Examiner Act, Dr. DiCarlo decided not to take immediate charge of Joyce’s body following her death; Dr. DiCarlo did not complete the mandatory autopsy required when a suspicious death was reported; in completing only an External Examination, Dr. DiCarlo failed to request testing and analysis of all specimens taken from the decedent.  Dr. DiCarlo also failed to interview the siblings of the deceased as required by the New Jersey State Medical Examiner Act; Dr. DiCarlo released the decedent for cremation immediately after completing his External Examination, thus making it impossible to determine the cause and manner of death beyond a reasonable doubt; Dr. DiCarlo falsified a public document-a certificate of death.  Finally, Dr. DiCarlo failed to ensure that both the Prosecutor and the Sayreville Police Department conducted thorough and complete investigations of the suspicious death of Joyce B. (Strouse) Sauter.

This charge is based upon the statute which provides that:

“A person commits an offense if, with purpose to hinder his own apprehension, investigation, prosecution, conviction or punishment of another for murder or criminal negligence.”

Each of the following elements must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to find Dr. DiCarlo guilty.  The first element that must be proven is that Dr. DiCarlo knew that he had been or was likely to be charged.

The second element that must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt is that Dr. DiCarlo suppressed, by way of concealment or destruction, any evidence of the crime OR tampered with a document or other source of information, which evidence or document might aid in his discovery or apprehension or in the lodging of a charge against him

The third element that must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt is that Dr. DiCarlo acted with the purpose of  hindering apprehension, prosecution, conviction or punishment.

Regarding the first element, because Dr. DiCarlo was quite familiar with the New Jersey State Medical Examiner Act (52-17B) and the NJ Administrative Code (13:49)and he knew he was violating sections within each, for example, failure to conduct an autopsy and failure to conduct a crime scene investigation, and; because the siblings of the deceased kept calling, providing information regarding a suspicious death, and kept inquiring about a criminal investigation, and; because Dr. DiCarlo knew he falsified a certificate of death, which is a 2C Criminal Code of Justice law violation.  Thus, Dr. DiCarlo knew or should have known, that he was likely to be charged at some point.

Regarding the second element, by his direct action, Dr. DiCarlo released the main body of evidence, the body of the deceased, to the alleged murderer prior to completion of his investigation.  Though required to conduct an autopsy, he conducted only an External Examination on October 31, 2005, according to his certified report.  He released the body of the decedent to the alleged murderer, on November 1, 2005, and within a matter of hours, Joyce’s body was cremated.  With the cremation, all evidence was lost that could be used to determine the cause and manner of death beyond a reasonable doubt.  Also, Dr. DiCarlo released Joyce’s body long before he received the lab results from the NJ State Toxicology Lab in Trenton, as already proven.  Dr. DiCarlo also falsified a public record, Joyce’s certificate of death. 

Regarding the third element, Dr. DiCarlo’s efforts of hindering were two-fold and successful.  First, by taking the action previously discussed, he ensured that the alleged murderer would be protected from investigation or prosecution.  In fact, as of this date, the alleged murderer has yet to be investigated for the suspicious death of Joyce. Second, by not conducting the autopsy, and only conducting an External Examination, Dr. DiCarlo ensured that there would be no evidence available upon which to determine the true cause and manner of death and that the results of his External Examination specimen analysis, and Joyce’s recent medical history, would make it appear that his conclusion that cancer killed Joyce was indeed accurate; this action was intended to protect himself, as well.  Additionally, though Dr. DiCarlo directed the Prosecutors Office to conduct a suspicious death investigation, Dr. DiCarlo knowingly and purposely never followed up with the Prosecutors Office to determine why they were not investigating the suspicious death and to determine why they did not complete an investigation at all. 

If Dr. DiCarlo had contacted the Prosecutors Office for an update shortly after the suspicious death investigation was ordered (the night of Joyce’s suspicious death), Dr. DiCarlo would have learned that the Prosecutors Office was doing nothing.  A reasonable person would believe that if the Prosecutors Office immediately began conducting an investigation as directed by Dr. DiCarlo, Dr. DiCarlo would never had been able to release the decedent to the person alleged to have murdered her.  It is obvious that Dr. DiCarlo’s intent was to have as little evidence and investigative activity in this case as possible-and he succeeded.  As noted by Deputy Attorney General Hollingsworth, the Prosecutor waited 80 (eighty) days after he was told to conduct an investigation, to decide not/not to conduct an investigation.

With this in mind, it is easy to conclude that it was Dr. DiCarlo’s knowing and purposeful intent to engage in conduct of that nature, to cause the result it did; that is to say, the actions he took kept him from being investigated, prosecuted, convicted, or punished.  And when Carolyn Ausley and Bill Strouse filed allegations/charges and complaints against Dr. DiCarlo with the NJ Office of Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General Denise Hollingsworth concluded the allegations/charges had no merit.  You’ve just read something that contradicts that conclusion; you also had the opportunity to read direct and relevant evidence that contradicts Ms. Hollingsworth’s conclusion. 

Something stinks in the Office of the Attorney General and Middlesex County, NJ, still.  Though apprised of these developments in early September 2008, and provided extensive direct and relevant evidence in support of their allegations, neither Carolyn Ausley nor Bill Strouse have ever received an acknowledgement of receipt from either Governor Corzine’s Office or the office of the U. S. Attorney, Ralph J. Marra, Acting U. S. Attorney, as of January 5^th, 2009, the date of this writing.

Please remember that none of the public servants mentioned in this chapter have been charged by any law enforcement with breaking any laws.  They are, by law, considered innocent until proven guilty.  Also remember that any allegations made herein are fully supportable by direct evidence which, ironically, was produced by the public servants themselves, in response to concerns raised by Carolyn Ausley and Bill Strouse.  Carolyn and Bill seek a full and open investigation into the suspicious death of their sister Joyce. 

Carolyn and Bill also seek required legal action against the public servants who used their public offices to shield themselves and their colleagues from investigation and possible prosecution.  

Any investigative files and information prepared by the NJ Office of Attorney General were not made available to either Carolyn or Bill.  Our allegations will be proven once the investigation of Joyce’s suspicious death-and subsequent cover-up-is completed. 

ADDENDUM DATED 02-10-2009

MIDDLESEX COUNTY MEDICAL EXAMINER FALZON REFUSES TO CORRECT CERTIFICATE OF DEATH (Posted 2-10-09)

Laws continue to be violated in the Middlesex County Medical Examiner’s Office.  In a letter dated February 5, 2009, Andrew L. Falzon, M.D., County Medical Examiner for Middlesex County, states his refusal to correct the certificate of death for Joyce ( See G ).  According to the official NJ state form to make corrections to the certificate of death, only the physician who initially completed and certified the cause and manner of death has the authority to correct the certificate of death.  In this case, Dr. Falzon abused his public office by not having Dr. Frederick J. DiCarlo, the certifying medical examiner, render a decision documented by his signature, to review our request for a corrected certificate.  Dr. Falzon’s letter also falls short by not stating that Dr. DiCarlo, the certifying physician on the certificate of death would not authorize the correction as requested.  Since only the certifying official can make such a decision, a reasonable person may conclude by default or omission, that Dr. DiCarlo informed Dr. Falzon that he refused to correct the certificate of death.

FALZON AS CULPABLE AS THE REST OF THE PUBLIC SERVANTS

Dr. Falzon cannot plead ignorance to the direct and relevant evidence in this case and is fully aware of the complaints and criminal allegations against Mr. Aronowitz, the First Deputy County Counsel for Middlesex County, against Dr. Dicarlo, and thus, against his office.  As a result, Dr. Falzon could be charged with a number of 2C criminal code violations, such as:

Conspiracy 2C:5-2

False Swearing 2C:28-2A

Official Misconduct 2C:30-2

Hindering Apprehension or Prosecution 2C:29-3a or 3b

Tampering With Physical Evidence 2C:28-6(1) and (2)

Tampering With Public Records or Information (Making, Presenting or Filing a False Document, Record, or Thing) 2C28:-7a(2)

Obstructing Administration of Law or Other Governmental Functions 2C:29-1

Dr. Falzon’s decision to cover for and protect Dr. DiCarlo now brings Dr. Falzon into the fray of knowing, purposeful, and deliberate actions to protect (intent) not only his office and Dr. DiCarlo, but also the person alleged to have murdered our sister.  The harm continues to befall Carolyn and Bill by not having closure surrounding the suspicious death of our sister.  This act by Dr. Falzon amounts to, at a minimum, Official Misconduct on his part.  As we have laid out for your review by posting direct and relevant evidence, it is clear that the “case” has not been thoroughly investigated nor has all the material been reviewed.  Remember that our legal justification for requesting a correction to the certificate of death is based upon the New Jersey law that says an autopsy is MANDATORY in all suspicious death cases; an autopsy is the only way to determine the true manner and cause of death.  Since an autopsy was not conducted by Dr. DiCarlo, the current certificate of death must be corrected by him, in accordance with the laws of the State of New Jersey.

FALZON GIVEN CHANCE TO RETRACT HIS STATEMENT

On February 10, 2009, we decided to give the Middlesex County Medical Examiner one more chance to set the record straight.  Our letter of February 10, 2009, ( See H1, H2, H3, H4, H5, H6, H7, H8, H9, H10, H11, H12, H13, H14, H15, H16, H17, H18, H19, H20, H21, H22) once again lays out the case for correcting the false certificate of death filed by Dr. DiCarlo.  Specifically, we cite the appropriate sections of the NJ State Medical Examiner Act that were violated by Dr. DiCarlo and now by Dr. Falzon, including the fact that his office never conducted a crime scene investigation nor did they conduct the mandatory autopsy, among others.  In his letter, Dr. Falzon states that “the case has been thoroughly investigated and all the material has been reviewed.”  This of course, is a lie, and Dr. Falzon knows it is a lie–this lie amounts to “False Swearing”; it also meets the 2C criteria for Official Misconduct.

WHAT DOES DR. FALZON KNOW

Dr. Falzon knows that the mandatory autopsy was not conducted; he knows that a court battle ensued to obtain Joyce’s specimens because Dr. DiCarlo refused to test all specimens based on the allegation of suspicious death; he knows that independent analysis of the specimens showed that Joyce was dehydrated and in a prolonged fasting or starvation condition at the time of her death; he knows that Bill and Carolyn are still pressing for an investigation.  Though Dr. Falzon knows all of this, he still has chosen to conspire to protect Dr. DiCarlo and all the other public servants involved in this blue wall cover-up.  As we have clearly documented, the “case” has not been thoroughly investigated, certainly not by the Medical Examiner’s Office.

Dr. Falzon’s affirmation is knowingly and purposely false and not supported by direct and relevant evidence.  His intent, at a minimum, is to protect Dr. DiCarlo, along with all the other public servants.  Dr. Falzon also states that all the material has been reviewed.  We provided Dr. DiCarlo, the Middlesex County Counsel (who also has complaints filed against him in this case), the Prosecutor’s Office (who also has complaints filed against him in this case) and the Sayreville Police Department (who also have complaints filed against them in this case) with “all” the direct and relevant evidence/material to review.  All the more reason to conclude that the blue wall cover-up is alive and well.

As a reasonable person can read from our links, the direct and relevant evidence clearly shows that numerous public servants in Middlesex County, including now Dr. Falzon, have used their office to hinder an investigation, falsify public records and documents, all with the intent of protecting the alleged murderer of Joyce, and protect themselves from indictment and prosecution.  How Dr. Falzon can review all the material and conclude that nothing amiss has occurred seems to defy all logic.  Dr. Falzon is unable to produce any evidence to support the claims made in his denial letter of February 5, 2009.

PLEASE NOTE THAT N.J. DEP ATTNY GENERAL DENISE HOLLINGSWORTH REVIEWED ALL OF THIS DIRECT AND RELEVANT EVIDENCE AND CONCLUDED THAT NONE OF IT HAD ANY MERIT, CRIMINAL OR OTHERWISE.  A PATTERN OF OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT IS BECOMING APPARENT.

NAVIGATION NOTES

• The “log-in” at the top is for the site administrator only
• Please click on the link to the right under the heading “Categories” to access each chapter
• As we prepare each chapter, a new link under the heading “Categories” will be added (any updates made will be noted below and in the chapter itself).
• To make comments, scroll or page down or control/end to the bottom of the document and select “Comments” The page will refresh and the cursor will return to the top of the document. Scroll or page down or control/end to the bottom again and enter your comments. Although your email address is required, it will not be viewable to the public; you may use just your first name if you like. Because of inappropriate postings, we have taken the liberty to screen all postings for appropriateness prior to posting.
• To view the linked (See) documents, click on the numbers or letters underlined in blue located within the chapters.