- Joined
- Mar 8, 2021
- Messages
- 20
- Reaction score
- 97
I would think it depends on how much of the body is left, but it would be in general, yesDoes anyone know if strangulation would be obvious post mortum? I don't know much about these things.
I would think it depends on how much of the body is left, but it would be in general, yesDoes anyone know if strangulation would be obvious post mortum? I don't know much about these things.
Trying to be as clinical and not graphic as possible. Typically it can be picked up via broken bones in the neck, bruising in the obvious areas, broken capillaries in the eyes, certain inflammations in the lungs and other signs I cant recall.
Does this also rule out a knife being used?(trying to be respectful when discussing this)
No.Does this also rule out a knife being used?(trying to be respectful when discussing this)
I think that they were deemed to be unrelated, but I not sure that it came from an official source.Taken from Tortoise's very helpful timeline:
9 Mar 2021, Tuesday :-
Unknown time - “a member of the public finds two number plates stashed in Rodenhurst Road and they are placed in evidence bags.” (SOURCE The Telegraph)
Any more known about this? If the accused dumped these, it suggests premeditated actions. Or perhaps they were not in any way connected to the case.
Not necessarily so. Identifying via dental records is not unusual. It can be more reliable, and is less distressing to family/friends of the deceased than visual identification.Having to ID her from dental records gives sway to the body being in a bad way, probably a due to a fair amount of decomposition, but there may also of course be what injury was inflicted on it post-mortem.
In terms of an inconclusive PM, personally I wouldn't read too much into this at this stage. IMO, what this probably leads towards is an inquest into cause of death. We know that will happen because it is a criminal investigation. JMO but I don't think this, especially written as it is as a small snippet in a paper but not majorly reported anyway, indicates much more than a small piece of due process.
In terms of an inconclusive PM, personally I wouldn't read too much into this at this stage. IMO, what this probably leads towards is an inquest into cause of death. We know that will happen because it is a criminal investigation. JMO but I don't think this, especially written as it is as a small snippet in a paper but not majorly reported anyway, indicates much more than a small piece of due process.
No, but there will still be a report, which will be evidence in court, if this goes to trial.Would they say inconclusive if they did know the actual cause?
No they would just withhold the result without commentWould they say inconclusive if they did know the actual cause?
Thank you! That is interesting. So an inquest is opened if it's determined that a post mortem can't establish cause of death is that correct? And when completed it is classed as one of the categories listed - say "unlawful killing". (Speculation).
If it is adjourned so the body can be released for burial, assume that means no further attempts at post mortem will be made.
Interesting to see that the outcome of the inquest has to tally with the outcome of any trial.
They did not provide any details, but they did not say that "partial remains" had been found when they first located the body.Very unfortunate that the pm was inconclusive. Do we know if the body was fully intact when it was found (although likely tampered with in some way hence the inconclusive result). Sorry this has probably been answered or stated as not known throughout and I’ve been reading bits of all 13 threads
I'm no expert but I think that's an easy method for them to see on pm? I remember a documentary about Nilsen which mentioned they could tell an unknown victim had been strangled or garrotted just from a smallish piece of skin retreived from the drains.Does anyone know if strangulation would be obvious post mortum? I don't know much about these things.
Would they say inconclusive if they did know the actual cause?
No, but inconclusive only means not conclusive. It doesn't mean we don't suspect, or we don't have a theory. It just means its not a conclusive fact -edit theory really, because it doesn't become fact until the inquest says so. So personally, IMO, I wouldn't read anything into it beyond theres no one stand out obvious conclusive cause of death.
Or perhaps the body was in parts and they still need to search for more? Unpleasant to think about it, but it's certainly sounding like this.It could be multiple injuries and they can't determine which one caused death![]()
Here’s a paper that shows that after excluding ‘decomposed and skeletonized’ bodies almost none had an indeterminate cause and manner of death. I would thus guess that the body, for whatever reason, was too decomposed, or similar, for a cause of death to be determined.
Taken from Tortoise's very helpful timeline:
9 Mar 2021, Tuesday :-
Unknown time - “a member of the public finds two number plates stashed in Rodenhurst Road and they are placed in evidence bags.” (SOURCE The Telegraph)
Any more known about this? If the accused dumped these, it suggests premeditated actions. Or perhaps they were not in any way connected to the case.