This may have already been discussed -
How would a medical examine know if he drowned on purpose or accident? Besides if there were signs of a struggle what kind of proof would there be? The facebook page state "the autopsy did not show a suicide either nor accidental drowning" But would it? I don't know enough about an autopsy to know what kind of of information and science goes behind it or what gets listed. I am just wondering if they don't know how he got in the water can they say with fact - accident or suicide?
I don't think the medical examiner can tyically tell whether it was accidental or suicide when there is a drowning, without some other evidence such as an eye witness or suicide note that may give insight as to the victims mindset at the time. In this case, They just ruled that it was drowning.
So, how can people drown? As far as I can tell, it comes down to 3 ways.
1) homicide-the autopsy has stated that that they did not find anything suspicious about Paul's death. So that leaves 2 other options.
2) accident
3) suicide
The autopsy does not specify which of these 2 led to Paul's death, but logically, it's one or the other. In order to determine which of these 2 is more likely, you need to look at the circumstances. If Paul was out fishing in the middle of the day and was found in the water with a slip mark on the shore and blood on a rock, one could reasonably conclude an accident had occurred. However, in this case, we have a 22 year old who was drinking, who was apparently in some type of disagreement, who was reportedly "emotional", who clearly had a cut on his hand and/or wrist as seen on video, in the middle of the night, who winds up in the river as a drowning victim, one could reasonably conclude that perhaps it was not accidental.
In regards to the Facebook posts, they appear to be intentionally vague with the intent of making it look to the viewers that the autopsy ruled it a homicide, without actually saying it or without actually lying. By looking at the responses, it appears that was exactly the conclusion that many came to.
So, what can be made of the posts? Was the family lying when they said the autopsy did not show suicide either nor accidental drowning? Technically, no it wasn't a lie as the report did not specify either suicide or accidental drowning. However, it is logically concluded that it was one or another when it mentions that they found nothing suspicious.
So what was their motivation on how they handled the posting? I believe it is rooted in their strong belief that the roommates were involved. Perhaps they were trying to make the roommates sweat thinking they are still under suspicion? Perhaps they didn't want to admit to their family and friends that the report did not support their theory? Perhaps they would find it embarrassing for people to think Paul harmed himself and they were trying to protect his character. I really don't know.
So were they wrong in how they portrayed the results? It is not my place to say. My take is that these are very good people who have been put in a horrible situation. I have always avoided being critical of, or judging, family members (assuming they are not actually involved in the demise of the victims.) I try to recognize a couple of things. First, it is not my place to judge. Second, the family is in extreme pain and under tremendous stress. Third, I do not want to do anything to add to their pain. I will not start now by judging this family.
The determining factor in whether they are handling this correctly comes down to whether or not they are right in suspecting the roommates. LE obviously does not suspect the roommates of directly causing Paul's death. (nor do I) However, sometimes LE is wrong. If they are right, then their persistence in the pursuit of justice will be vindicated. However, if they are wrong, and they have publically cast suspicion on innocent people who are suffering the loss of their friend, then another injustice has been created.