The reason for this post is that someone in our family has passed away recently and they told us that cause of death was ‘sudden cardiac arrest’. However, that was what the doctor told at the place after his body had been found days after his passing in his flat. They said it seemed as if he had fallen. However, if there is known history of severe depression and reason to belief that it was not exactly a natural death (due to a short message in his last email), is there legitimate reason to doubt? This happened in Germany, so I do not know if there will be an autopsy. I also do not know if they say that to not worry the family? They also said ‘he passed away peacefully’ and how would they know that? If anyone works in the field or has heard about such a case in more detail, any information would be much appreciated, thank you!
In: Other
First, police are supposed to investigate it as if it were a crime. If they don’t find anything that indicates funny business, that’s evidence too.
If there’s an autopsy done, that can include a toxicology screening. Drugs mostly only “leave” the body if you’re alive and metabolizing. If you die because of a drug you took, it tends to stay inside your body and can be detected.
So “seemed as if he had fallen” could include where the body was found, its positioning, and opinions of the examiners about signs of injury such as bruising. “Sudden death” can be deduced by looking for signs the person struggled after falling and, again, by their body positioning. “Passed away peacefully” involves those things, too.
For example, the person could’ve had bruises indicating that on their way to bed they fell, but were able to get back up and weren’t so injured they weren’t mobile. But that might’ve been a symptom of the onset of cardiac arrest. They might’ve been functional enough to tuck themselves into bed, then pass away. If they struggled, the sheets would be very disturbed. If it was quick and painless, the sheets would be undisturbed.
If the investigation doesn’t find any reason to dig deeper, they won’t. That costs money and resources and, in general, the only reason government entities dig into it is if there is evidence of a crime. An insurance company may pay for further investigation if a policy is on the line.
Generally, if they think they found evidence of something other than natural causes, they don’t hide that from *the family* or people like insurance agents who have a legal interest in the opinion. Curious reporters might get a euphemism due to privacy laws. But if next-of-kin is being told “natural causes”, it’s because in the opinion of the investigators there is nothing else to report.
Latest Answers