black_squirrel
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2013
- Messages
- 1,181
- Reaction score
- 988
I have a hard time making sense of this myself.
First of all, do we know whether there was water in the lungs in the autopsy report. The reports about the autopsy are confusing. As I understood it,
she was first asphyxiated, then drowned (while unconscious but still alive). I presume that it took a while to rule this a homicide because the autopsy
report is crucial. If she had just drowned, it might have been an accident. But if she was asphyxiated first, it must have been foul play. But the determination
whether she drowned, or was asphyxiated and drowned may be subtile and may require advanced expertise to tell the difference (I'm guessing here. Does anyone
know any similar cases where a person has been asphyxiated and then drowned?)
But as you say, the lack of signs of a struggle does not seem to make sense.
First of all, do we know whether there was water in the lungs in the autopsy report. The reports about the autopsy are confusing. As I understood it,
she was first asphyxiated, then drowned (while unconscious but still alive). I presume that it took a while to rule this a homicide because the autopsy
report is crucial. If she had just drowned, it might have been an accident. But if she was asphyxiated first, it must have been foul play. But the determination
whether she drowned, or was asphyxiated and drowned may be subtile and may require advanced expertise to tell the difference (I'm guessing here. Does anyone
know any similar cases where a person has been asphyxiated and then drowned?)
But as you say, the lack of signs of a struggle does not seem to make sense.