Peter, if the ME had found evidence of the cause of death was homicide, then your opinion would change, based on the evidence.
Given the quality of some East Coast coroner's in the last half a dozen SK cases, I would like to read that report before I change my mind on a general note like "the ME thinks". But yes, if there would be conclusive evidence, I wouldn't ignore that.
Right now the findings are inconclusive, meaning no cause of death, either natural or criminal has been determined.
Wrong, the ME findings are inconclusive. The timeline, the physical limitations of the parties involved, the location of the body, the fact, that her belongings were spread out, are not inconclusive. In my opinion, they speak a very clear language. And I'm not willing to ignore that for reasons of political correctness.
Therefore since no evidence currently exists that foul play was involved, you are convinced SG entered the marsh, dropped her clothes, due to hypothermia, and then died of natural causes.
Again wrong. Since there is a lot of evidence outside of the ME report, I conclude, based on that evidence, that a death as consequence of temperature and drugs.
No evidence exists that SG entered the marsh. People saw her on the roadways, but nobody saw her in the marsh.
Lets stay logic here. Since her body was found in there, at some point, she had entered the marsh or, as I see your preferred theory, be carried in there. Now, while she was actually seen near the marsh and it is unreasonable to assume, that in a marsh nobody lives in somebody saw her, there is some strong indication, she actually entered the marsh that morning. This is also supported by the repeatedly led discussion that none of the involved parties had actually a wide enough time window to snatch SG and kill her.
Also supported is that theory by the fact, that it is a hell of an art work to carry skeletal remains into a marsh and puzzle them together exact enough to fool CSI and ME. Which would be an almost impossible thing to do outside of a Jerry Bruckheimer show. So we can simply dismiss any idea, the remains were placed there much later. We don't even need to ask the questions where those remains were before they were brough there because there is simply no chance they were transported thereto after the tissue was gone.
No evidence exists of anybody seeing SG walking in the marsh either. Even though it would take some time for SG reach her final resting spot. The Police officier who responded to Oak Beach, no doubt took a cursory look into the marsh I would hope, there was enough light to see at that time.
Just to get this right: You ASSUME, the officer took a CURSORY look into a marsh land full of brushes, you HOPE, he had enough light ... and then you use your hope and assumption as fact?
Since a number of residents were up already (GC, BB) likely there were others whose homes look out onto the marsh. Yet nobody saw this SG (potentially disrobed) wandering around the marsh.
You didn't even care to look where their houses are, where their windows are, how high the brushes were or how extended this area is before you bubbled that one out? You also didn't look up at what time, her footprints were seen? You also didn't care, that GC went to the entrance to wait for the police ... you didn't so any of the homework it appears. So, if nobody can see an area from their places, if people say, they couldn't see into that area because they went elsewhere, and if people have no Superman x-ray-glance to look through the brushes (for which SCPD later used some kind of tank to come through, which makes me think, they were not that small), well, no x-ray, no telepathy, no divine illumination, by your logic that means, the marsh doesn't even exist.
So nobody saw her enter the marsh, and nobody saw her in the marsh, you believe because her body ended up in the marsh that she walked in and wandered around all by herself. To quote you, where is the evidence?
After ignoring known facts, the area, all laws of physics, you came to the conclusion, that she was murdered. Count, how much known facts, you have to ignore or bend to make your idea even possible, and I explicitly don't say "credible" here.
I am not trying to argumentative, but it is important to understand that when no evidence exists of an event taking place, that event still could have taken place. The lack of evidence does not ensure the opposite occurrence.
Well, actually, you try to argue. You promote a theory that SG was killed intentionally by an unknown person. Now, the number of persons at this morning and in reach, is limited. None of them has a wide enough time window. SG was seen in Oak Beach and also in reach to the marsh. Her body was found in the marsh. The fact, that nobody saw her in that marsh is logical, given where the houses of the victims are and by the extension of the area as the plant life in there. SGs behavior, before she disappeared, indicates drug induced paranoia. Her known way through OB and her encounter with GC prove, she was at this time, minutes before she vanished entirely, not able to act reasonable or plan an escape. Nothing indicates, at the time, she met GC, that there was in fact anybody out to kill her. Before, she had put in a 23 minute call to 911 ... 23 minutes in which nobody tried to kill her, despite her claims.
I often break the speed laws, but just as often there is no evidence of that fact other than my own awareness of that fact, and I am not confessing.
MOO
But if someone finds one day your dead body in a car wreck and sees then the list of your speeding tickets, together with the depth of the impact into a brick wall, a confession is not necessary anymore. Because the moment, things go bad, there is evidence left and people can see it ... or chose to ignore it.
