no visual signs of foul play doesnt tell us a lot does it? her body had been left to the elements (quite harsh ones) possibly submerged, for 11 days. If you consider the outward appearance at this point, it would have been very difficult to look at. If an appendage (like a hand) was missing, it might be attributed to the elements ie, possible catching on debri after 11 days submerged, animals, etc. There would be soft tissue damage and so on. I think the no visible signs comment must be taken broadly. This is totally IMO as I have no idea at all, only what I've read, heard, seen over the years due to my interest in unsolved murders....please please please (Hawkins, Im talking to you, buddy) give us some info regarding what no signs of foul play really means......
Police reported "no visual signs of foul play", but it is rumoured (from what we can only assume is a reliable source) that police were up interviewing people in the hair salon that afternoon if they remember any marks on ABC's neck, chest, arms and hands.
To me this says there was signs of foul play (strangulation), but the police didn't want that information released to the public (or didn't want to before they told the families).
Police are playing their cards close to their chests, slowly leaking information that might entice one of the suspected parties to confess IMO.