ChatterBank1 min ago
What is the state of decomposition in fresh water after 10 days?
14 Answers
Have a few more in depth questions...
My fiance recently drowned and I am not very satisfied with the coroners answers, or lack of answers, actually. I feel like the matter needs to be looked at by someone with more expertise. however, I am not a doctor, nor do I have any experience in water fatalities. So, I just am looking for some answers...could the coroners statement that his body was too decomposed to tell if he had any injuries possibly be correct? Maybe I'm just looking for answers that aren't possible to get? Or, maybe (and I do feel like this is the likely scenario) this coroner just didn't have the correct equipment and/or experience to properly evaluate the situation?
The coroner told me that water speeds decompesition and that is why he was not able to tell if he had any injuries or not. Everything I've found online seems to indicate the opposite is true. Is there any way the coroners statement could be correct?
One more thing, I spoke with a woman in the coroners office and raised these concerns....told her that I am aware he does not normally handle any water fatalities in that area. There is a different coroners office more equipped and that other office is where the surrounding counties all send water fatalities. I told her I wonder, although the coroner is a doctor, is it like having a foot doctor look at a brain surgery? Maybe a different coroner with more experience would be more capable of discerning which injuries were pre and post mortem. She told me there is No WAY- anyone could tell if he had ANY injuries at all. Is it possible for the state of decomposition to be that severe? (9 1/2 days, fresh water, there was one day that the water was really rough, white caps, etc., but otherwise, pretty calm waters. Outside temperature during the whole time was mostly around mid 80's)
Just doesn't make sense to me. But, like I said, I'm in no position to say if that's right or wrong. I'm looking for input from someone
My fiance recently drowned and I am not very satisfied with the coroners answers, or lack of answers, actually. I feel like the matter needs to be looked at by someone with more expertise. however, I am not a doctor, nor do I have any experience in water fatalities. So, I just am looking for some answers...could the coroners statement that his body was too decomposed to tell if he had any injuries possibly be correct? Maybe I'm just looking for answers that aren't possible to get? Or, maybe (and I do feel like this is the likely scenario) this coroner just didn't have the correct equipment and/or experience to properly evaluate the situation?
The coroner told me that water speeds decompesition and that is why he was not able to tell if he had any injuries or not. Everything I've found online seems to indicate the opposite is true. Is there any way the coroners statement could be correct?
One more thing, I spoke with a woman in the coroners office and raised these concerns....told her that I am aware he does not normally handle any water fatalities in that area. There is a different coroners office more equipped and that other office is where the surrounding counties all send water fatalities. I told her I wonder, although the coroner is a doctor, is it like having a foot doctor look at a brain surgery? Maybe a different coroner with more experience would be more capable of discerning which injuries were pre and post mortem. She told me there is No WAY- anyone could tell if he had ANY injuries at all. Is it possible for the state of decomposition to be that severe? (9 1/2 days, fresh water, there was one day that the water was really rough, white caps, etc., but otherwise, pretty calm waters. Outside temperature during the whole time was mostly around mid 80's)
Just doesn't make sense to me. But, like I said, I'm in no position to say if that's right or wrong. I'm looking for input from someone
Answers
1 to 14 of 14
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by neednollage. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Who did the post mortem? It is not necessarily the coroner, who is often a solicitor or barrister and not a medically trained person.
A coroner's job is to evaluate all the evidence gathered by forensic specialists, and witnesses.
Really, I would not doubt the coroner - many people would have seen the body.
You must stop ferreting around the internet - it is a hugely specialist area and you will not find your answers there, The answers have been given by the coroner.
A coroner's job is to evaluate all the evidence gathered by forensic specialists, and witnesses.
Really, I would not doubt the coroner - many people would have seen the body.
You must stop ferreting around the internet - it is a hugely specialist area and you will not find your answers there, The answers have been given by the coroner.
This was a boating accident. There are things that could only have been uncovered in the autopsy that would lead the investigation further.Because the coroner could not tell if there were any injuries or not, the investigation has stopped.
My question here is this....
Is it even possible that the decompisition could be so severe within ten days that a trained professional would not be able to identify ANY INJURIES AT ALL?
It doesn't seem very logical to me because he obviously had some type of injuries...he was in water for 10 days....hitting debris, etc.
My question here is this....
Is it even possible that the decompisition could be so severe within ten days that a trained professional would not be able to identify ANY INJURIES AT ALL?
It doesn't seem very logical to me because he obviously had some type of injuries...he was in water for 10 days....hitting debris, etc.
okay.
He was hit by the boat he was on.
It is quite possible that he was hit with the propeller.
The search for him was immediate and immense...boats, helicopters, cadaver dogs, sonar equipment, divers, etc.
Because it took so long for him to be found, I wonder if he was hit in the stomach area, thus causing a disruption in the stomach lining and preventing the normal buildup of gases in the stomach that would cause a body to surface within 72-96 hours.
Even with the animal activity going on, should an injury like that be identifiable, or would the animal activity possibly erase all signs of it?
He was hit by the boat he was on.
It is quite possible that he was hit with the propeller.
The search for him was immediate and immense...boats, helicopters, cadaver dogs, sonar equipment, divers, etc.
Because it took so long for him to be found, I wonder if he was hit in the stomach area, thus causing a disruption in the stomach lining and preventing the normal buildup of gases in the stomach that would cause a body to surface within 72-96 hours.
Even with the animal activity going on, should an injury like that be identifiable, or would the animal activity possibly erase all signs of it?
Ethel, thanks.
Your opinions are appreciated. I am looking for more of a scientific answer , though.
And yes, I am saying there was definitely foul play.
What is the possibility that there is no way for that coroner to tell is my only question.
Just because you don't have the answer doesn't mean the question is not valid.
Hopefully someone with some real knowledge in this type of situation sees this and can give a factual answer.
Your opinions are appreciated. I am looking for more of a scientific answer , though.
And yes, I am saying there was definitely foul play.
What is the possibility that there is no way for that coroner to tell is my only question.
Just because you don't have the answer doesn't mean the question is not valid.
Hopefully someone with some real knowledge in this type of situation sees this and can give a factual answer.
If I logged on with a different user name and claimed to be a forensic scientist and gave an opinion - would you believe it?
No. Even if it were true. You would not believe it for the same reason as you don't believe the coroner - you simply don't want to.
I can tell you for a fact there would be very little soft tissue left if there is pike in that lake. That is a fact.
Your energy would be better spent getting counselling to help you come to terms with your loss.
However, if you are determined to pursue this, engage a lawyer and a forensic expert. It will be hugely expensive, but there is no other way to get the answers to your satisfaction.
No. Even if it were true. You would not believe it for the same reason as you don't believe the coroner - you simply don't want to.
I can tell you for a fact there would be very little soft tissue left if there is pike in that lake. That is a fact.
Your energy would be better spent getting counselling to help you come to terms with your loss.
However, if you are determined to pursue this, engage a lawyer and a forensic expert. It will be hugely expensive, but there is no other way to get the answers to your satisfaction.
1 to 14 of 14
Latest Posts
And They Wonder Why Insurance Is So...
News5 mins ago
Crosswords5 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles6 mins ago
And Even More Good News From Labour.
News15 mins ago