Pea-n-Me
DIS Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2004
I am a little torn about the autopsy piece. I have seen one in progress and afterward sworn that it was not something I would needlessly put one of my loved ones through if given the choice. When my own father died it was determined by the medical examiner to be of natural causes and no autopsy was needed. When my BIL died he was young and by law he had to have one; there was no choice. When a death occurs in the hospital when someone's sick, the vast majority of times people choose no autopsy if given the choice. So I can absolutely respect that if it's for religious reasons, especially, that they would choose no autopsy, and I'm not sure what the laws are in their state or how they would apply given the circumstances of his demise. I'm also not sure it would yield the information everyone wants, ie a smoking gun. Lots of tests were done on his body in the six days he was home so those will give a lot of information when they're pieced together. I suppose there is a chance they could've found a smoking gun with an autopsy, but the chance may have been quite small. That would be my guess. Because perhaps if the chance was large, they may have done it despite the religious implications, idk. I did read that there were no bruises, fractures, or other signs of torture anywhere on his body; that basically all areas of his brain showed tissue death, so it's pretty clear what he died from. The question is, how did that happen? Three of the possibilities were pneumonia, a blood clot, or a heart attack. I'm sure they would've checked for evidence of those while he was alive. What scares me is what I know about torture in the North Korean camps, and how they go a little "soft" on foreigners. One of the methods they are known to use is drowning and near-drowning. If that were the case, perhaps the family didn't want to know.