Some of you have no doubt heard about the death of University of Southern California kicker Mario Danelo, whose body was found at the bottom of a 120 foot cliff at Point Fermin in Los Angeles.
The police have already ruled out foul play, but said they are investigating if this is either an accident or suicide. But how would they be able to make such a determination? There are toxicology tests being run, but would the injuries be any different if you jumped off the cliff rather than fell? Could anyone tell with any certainty?
I suppose in a world where we’ve grown accustomed to “Quincy” and “CSI” that lead us to believe that intrepid forensic pathologists can tell us anything that isn’t it likely that we may not know what happened?
I’m not sure they’d even be looking for much physical evidence in a case like this. I would guess maybe if the toxicology tests showed he was drunk or using recreational drugs, they might decide it was an accident or “death by misadventure” but if they found a significant quantity of barbiturates or something they might conclude the guy was depressed and offed himself.
I’m thinking the toxicology might be one of several avenues investigators would pursue, along with talking to his friends and family, and finding out if his behavior or attitude had changed recently or if he’d gotten some devastating news.
If it can’t be determined for sure, the Coroner involved is more likely to come down on the side of ‘accident’ than ‘suicide’, for the sake of the family. Nobody likes to think a family member killed themselves, so the kinder option is put on the death certificate.
Ultimately I would believe a suicide ruling would be based on an investigation of the young man’s personal effects (such as web blogs, diaries and whatnot) and interviews of friends & relatives. If there was cause to believe he had an interest in self murder there than suicide might be considered, otherwise an accident it was…
I was a juror at an inquest once, and we were told by the Coroner that if there was any doubt at all we could not bring in a verdict of suicide. So if it’s at all conceivable that the death was accidental, that’s the assumption that is made.
No expert on the subject here, i have *limited * experience in throwing people off cliffs, but i think it fair to say that no concious person would allow themselves to be thrown off a cliff without putting up a fair bit of a struggle.
Although it must be hard to tell the difference, i’d guess that an expert may be able to tell the difference between a bruise caused by a fall and one caused by being restrained/manhandled?
How much life insurance does a 21-year old college student have? The young man’s family are mainly longshoremen. Would their union provide life insurance for everybody in a family?
He could easily still have a low cost life insurance plan purchased by his parents (or grandparents) while he was young. My wife had one when she was younger. Her parents were not well off either.
My own policy excluded payouts for suicide for 2 years following the first payment. If I was to off myself, Mrs. Butler would be up $250k. I have NO plans to exercise that payment option.
Just noodling this for a few minutes: I would assume that someone who wanted to kill himself (or herself) would want the end to come quickly and as painlessly as possible. So someone jumping over a cliff to commit suicide would be expected to jump out away from the cliff, suffering few or no bruises and contusions on the way down. But someone who fell down a cliff would probably tumble quite a bit, and if at all possible, try to stop their fall or save themselves, resulting in multiple injuries to limbs and extremities.
Not that either would be conclusive proof of anything – but it’s a thought.
Nice idea in theory, but there’s a couple problems I can think of. 1) Most cliffs aren’t vertical, even if they look vertical, so the chance of hitting the cliff face on the way down is probably likely in both cases. 2) If you wanted to commit suicide, would you be more likely to stand well back from the cliff and then run and jump off of it? Or more likely to stand on the very edge considering it and then either jump or let yourself fall off? No cite, but all of the TV shows show the person standing right on the edge considering it. So even if the person jumped out from standing on the edge, he’d still probably hit the side.
I’m sure determining between an accident and a suicide would involve some sort of “forensic psychology”,if you will. This would entail as,** 2gigch1**, said, a look into journals, grades, conversations with friends, a lover, family, & employers.
When I was in high school, a boy that graduated a year ahead of me disappeared from his college. They found his body a week later in a river near the college. It was determined he either fell or jumped from a foot bridge and drowned. It was baffling to think of suicide because he had been the valedictorian in high school, class president, a straight A honors student and was liked by everyone. His father was a prominent political figure back home and he had a great family life. In college he also had straight A’s and was very active on campus. After a 2 week investigation into this kid’s personal life it was revealed that he had just come out, to just a couple of people, as a homosexual and was not dealing well at all with this aspect of himself. The final coroner ruling was suicide.
