By Paul Tambasco
City Editor
The autopsy findings for Mayela Orduna clarify misleading reports from two prominent Triangle news organizations that originally published stories with headlines stating the teen was sober.

Garner Police cordon off a section of Aversboro Road on Feb. 17, hours after discovering an unconscious woman near Old Scarborough Lane.
On Wednesday, March 18, WRAL and NBC-17 published articles on their Web sites based on an initial toxicology report of a sample of Orduna’s blood taken after she died. WRAL’s story was titled “Woman left by Garner road was sober at time of death.” NBC-17 ran a similar headline with an abstract that linked to WRAL’s article.
Those familiar with the autopsy findings say the news organizations created confusion with headlines emphasizing Orduna’s sobriety at death – when in fact she was intoxicated at the time of the incident.
Though no alcohol was found in the postmortem sample, more than 20 hours had passed between when the incident occurred and when Orduna died just before midnight on Feb. 17. In that time, her body would have metabolized any alcohol, creating a misleading negative result, says Ruth Whitaker, chief toxicologist at the N.C. Office of the Chief Medical Examiner.
‘It Might Cause a Misunderstanding’
A blood sample taken from Orduna when she arrived at WakeMed showed an alcohol concentration of .279.
“When there is a delayed death, we usually don’t perform a postmortem alcohol [test] because we know it is going to be negative, and it might cause a misunderstanding like this,” Whitaker said.
The medical examiner usually notifies Whitaker’s lab in such cases, prompting them to hold off on running the sample or attach results from the hospital sample, she said. In Orduna’s case, however, neither was done.
Whitaker did not offer an explanation but said the office handles a heavy caseload of 40 to 50 cases a day from multiple counties around the state.
Early last week, the NCOME reissued the toxicology report with the results from the hospital sample attached.
WRAL and NBC-17 published the original story without asking the office about the woman’s alcohol levels upon admission to the hospital. To understand the report, someone needs to consider context – especially the circumstances of a death, Whitaker said.
“You can’t just look at the toxicology report and interpret it in a vacuum. That is what happened in this case. …It’s really important that it doesn’t stand on its own, that it is viewed with the case as a whole.”
Whitaker said the office typically gets calls from reporters verifying results.
“We just didn’t this time,” she said.
Evolving information
WRAL says stories about Orduna, like others, have been revised to incorporate new information as it comes into the newsroom.
They received the original toxicology report on March 18 and posted a story that day under a headline saying she was sober when she died, said Rick Gall, news director for WRAL.
The headline was used despite the story indicating that police at the time believed Orduna had been drinking.
“Days later, the autopsy report comes out, and it says something else, so we update the story to reflect that. …As new information came in, the story was updated, the headline was updated as well. …In newsgathering that happens from time to time. Information is evolving. Stories evolve, especially a story like this,” Gall said.
In hindsight, Gall believes his group presented the story responsibly – including the first headline that stated Orduna was sober.
“I think if you put yourself in that situation, at that point in time, knowing what we knew then, that headline is not outside the facts of the information that we had,” he said.
Though WRAL revised its story on its Web site to reflect the amended toxicology report, there is no alert that a correction was made. NBC-17 has a link to the revised WRAL story, but as of publication the original abstract remains posted.
Nevertheless, Whitaker says the public is best served if published reports avoid the confusion the first time around.
“Just give us a call,” she said.
We believe that reader interaction is a valuable feature on our website and aim to foster an online community that is enriching, robust and respectful. We reserve the right to remove any comment that contains profanity or obscenity; is an advertisement for services or a solicitation of funds; contains a personal attack or a threat; or is unrelated to the story.