…for confirmation
The ghoulish saga of Adrianna’s Corpse continues to cynically unfold as the family; relatives and a cynical section of the Opposition pursue their search for official confirmation of their insistence that she’d been murdered rather than drowned. Your Eyewitness feels we need to recapitulate the info to date – since we can compare with the second autopsy the family had arranged by schlepping the poor child’s corpse that had been already cut up and embalmed.
Initially, the family – along with much of Guyana – were quite skeptical that local pathologists might be compromised – and the three foreign pathologists, brought in by the government to conduct the autopsy that would assist in determining the cause of death. One of the three was American, selected by Adrianna’s family. That autopsy found no evidence of any trauma suggesting manhandling – concluded she’d drowned.
Going beyond standard operating procedures with deaths involving suspicion of foul play – here asserted by the family – to alleviate fears of compromise, the police secured the service of a retired, experienced detective from the RCMP to move from cause of death (drowning) to identify the MANNER in which the child drowned and if not accidental, by whom. The family maintained that the child had been taken somewhere out of the pool and been killed in some ritual by the owner of the hotel and his workers and returned to the pool – where it floated up the next day.
The RCMP investigator did what these investigators do – reviewed the evidence from the scene of the crime and the pathology and toxicology reports; conducted interviews with persons of interest – including he family and came to a conclusion. Adrianna had died by accidental drowning since he could find NO evidence of foul play – such as trauma to her body or evidence of drugging.
The Georgia Medical Examiner preliminarily presented her new autopsy and emphasized the first autopsy was done “competently” and her findings were consistent with it. This was even after she dissected and examined some tissues in Adrianna’s throat that had been left intact. Repeating several times, “going by what she had been told” – obviously by the relatives who believe murder had been committed – she introduced a distinction on the term “drowning” that should be of interest to those interested in “justice for Adrianna”. “Drowning”, she said,” is a diagnosis of exclusion and by that it means that you have to exclude other potential causes of death and oftentimes when a body is found in water, the assumption is that the person has drowned. There is nothing at autopsy that is diagnostic of drowning.”
But this is exactly what had been done in Guyana by the RCMP investigator before he pronounced that Adrianna had drowned!
