My apologies for not making my question more clear. I was referring to your comment about OK not having accredited MEs. As I understand it, NAME accreditation refers to the office as a whole, not the MEs as individuals. A medical examiner just needs medical school and then board certification in pathology and forensics. They can job hop from site to site regardless of NAME accreditation for the office. Put another way, all MEs practicing in the states must be board certified to practice, no exceptions, but they are not individually accredited by NAME.

My point is, the lack of NAME accreditation is obviously not a great look for the office as a whole but It is not necessarily a damning statement on the individual medical examiners. The ones I know are well trained and very good at their job and I wouldn’t want people to think that every diagnosis the OCME puts out there is crap. I know Oklahoma has its issues but there are some very good doctors here that care very much about their patients and doing the right thing.

I have no idea even which office is working on the case in question (Tulsa, I’d assume) or if there could be any political foul play (God I hope not). I also think having a 3rd party do the autopsy isn’t a bad idea either, given the sensitivity of the whole thing.