sorry to hear your news - i asked editorial and this was the response,hope its helpful.
An inquest is a court, with the coroner who has carried out the post mortem sitting a bit like a judge and giving his or her verdict on the cause of death, and on what led up to a person's death.
The purpose of the court is NOT to place blame (as it is in criminal court), but to set out the facts, as far as they can be known, about the incident. When I've attended an inquest, I have always found the coroner to be kind, understanding and sympathetic toward the family. That's not to say the facts the coroner relays are not upsetting -- they often are -- but they are said in as kind a way as possible, sticking to the facts of how injuries were caused, with sympathy for what the person who died was going through. Nothing too graphic will be said or shown (no images) and details are kept to just what is needed to give a cause of death. So the coroner would be more likely to say "severe trauma incompatible with life" instead of "head ripped off by a train" (or whatever). I have been to an inquest where someone was almost decapitated in a car accident (I knew this from the police) and the inquest just said "severe major head injuries". So it's not stomach-churning.
The coroner will explain what led up to the death, how the death was carried out and whether there are any other details (such as a suicide note) which showed the person's state of mind at the time of their death. Then the coroner will make a ruling on the cause of death -- most likely in the case of a suicide the ruling will be that a person "took their own life". And that's it. It will be over. The coroner will thank the family for coming and express his sorrow for their loss. Hearing the details in open court can be upsetting, but it won't be dragged out or gone into in much detail. Nothing will be said along the lines of "if only someo