Discussion in 'Located Persons Discussion' started by tesni, Mar 5, 2021.
I would think it depends on how much of the body is left, but it would be in general, yes
Yes, all of those are indications. The hyoid bone (front of neck below chin) is really difficult to break accidentally so is often seen as a strong sign of strangulation / neck compression.
I’m guessing here, but I’d say not necessarily. E.g., a knife may have been used, but not to such an extent that the wound would typically be life-ending.
I’d also be interested to know what impact (if any) not being able to prove cause of death has on the prosecution’s case.
I think that they were deemed to be unrelated, but I not sure that it came from an official source.
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.
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.
But the inquest can’t happen until after the criminal proceedings have concluded. That could be quite some time away.
Would they say inconclusive if they did know the actual cause?
No, but there will still be a report, which will be evidence in court, if this goes to trial.
No they would just withhold the result without comment
I can only speak for the one I was summoned to, but it was opened and then closed very quickly.
Criminal proceedings took place which obviously had an entirely different jury, and then many months later we were called in again for the coroner's inquest to conclude.
I obviously did not follow the criminal case for very important reasons, but I believe that although the inquest came to the same medical conclusions that the case focusses on criminal intent establishing guilt etc but obviously the coroner's court is focussed on cause of death and not around who did it. I don't know any of the mechanisms or interrelations between the different bits of work as I avidly avoided learning anything external.
It is very very rare to summon a jury for a coroner's court. I don't think I should say too much about the case but it was necessary to have both a criminal jury and one for the coroner's court. JMO from one experience!
They did not provide any details, but they did not say that "partial remains" had been found when they first located the body.
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.
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.
JMO - but thinking more on it, I would think it means there are many possible causes of death but no clear one thing that it definitely is from pathology alone, rather than no signs whatsoever. As such I don't think it rules anything out IMO.
If the prosecution can’t prove cause/manner of death, what effect does that have on their case? Does not having a conclusive cause of death effect their ability to secure a conviction?
Something troubles me about the locations the police have been searching - the old family garage, the abandoned leisure/paintball centre, the sealed-up Ministry of Defence tunnels beneath the garage. Does anyone else find it odd that the alleged perp would have such ease of access to enter these locations years after they were abandoned? Presumably the garage wasn't owned by the family any more and was perhaps in the control of the council. And abandoned buildings are usually sealed up and locked for safety reasons if nothing else in my experience, not left open to the public.
I know there's footage on youtube of urban explorers accessing the garage. And I know there was a report that the tunnel search was actually a training exercise by the fire brigade. But it still doesn't sit quite right with me. I don't believe that the police WOULDN'T have searched those tunnels in the circumstances, since they passed beneath the garage. But I can believe that the MOD would put out a cover story about a training exercise to throw journalists off the scent since any suggestion that a crime had potentially been committed by an ex-Territorial Army soldier on off-limits Ministry of Defence property would be highly embarrassing for them.
LE seem to have based their operations around the leisure centre and it was reported that they searched the interior. Again how exactly would any alleged perp have gained access to the inside of the building?
Makes me wonder if the alleged perpetrator either had accomplices or has taken advantage of someone's trust to gain unauthorised access to places they shouldn't have been.
Taking SE to any of these places to commit crimes against her would also imply an element of pre-meditated intent and planning.
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.
I truly hate writing this comment. It was less than a week between when SE went missing and was found. As far as we know she was found outside, in open air, at relatively temperate temperatures, partially protected by the builders bag, by my reckoning based on the minor facts we know decomposition wouldn't be the cause for not being able to ascertain cause of death- All IMO
It was mentioned on thread #7, p. 52 that they were not connected, although Idk of any official confirmation.