I think someone who had scientific knowledge posted recently that in strangulation it takes 3-4 minutes to ensure they are dead. That is a long time and in that time (unless you strangle from behind which is unusual) you are looking at the victim, they are usually fighting back, and you are continuing to squeeze until they are dead. If you strangle someone to death it is a very conscious thing you are doing in trying to kill them IMO, because you keep going until the job is done.
It's not as common, not even sure if its possible, that if you start to strangle someone and then stop that they die later, whereas if you were hitting them over the head with a blunt instrument and didnt kill them they could get a brain haemorrhage or have other internal bleeding where they would die later.
If it turns out to be strangulation, lets get this straight, it's not an 'accident'. Being regretful for your actions later doesnt mean you didnt mean to kill the person, it could mean you suddenly realise you might have ruined your own life and now you might wish to reconsider. If it is strangulation, let's keep it in mind that this is a person who watched their victim's face as they died in a state of terror, and the reaction in front of them wasn't enough to make them stop. The usual intention is to slience the person, and if that means killing them, that is what they do.
By the way, I know I've said this before but I'll say it again as there are different people on the forum at different times, just because someone did not pre-plan the murder does not mean they didn't 'intend' to kill the person. When you actually killed the person you could very well have intended it, and very much wanted it. It is NOT any less of a crime because the desire to kill only arose in a short space of time. For all we know the murderer might have had a wish to kill their victim on many occasions, and this was the one time they actually did it.
