Suicides

[Win2Win]

So the coroner will not give a verdict of suicide on the guy found hanging on his own in the garage :doh

[GlosRFC]

That's not altogether surprising. The role of a Coroner is to investigate suspicious deaths and, before they can pass a verdict of suicide or unlawful killing, they must be satisfied that it's proven beyond reasonable doubt.

If they're not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt then legally they have no choice but to deliver either a verdict of accidental death or an open verdict, unless the evidence points to one of the other possible verdicts available, e.g. lawful killing, industrial disease, dependence on drugs, etc.

[scoobydoo]

I would think a very high percentage of suicides go down as accidental or open verdicts when really family members know what has happened.Without a note...it is much harder for a Coroner to give a suicide verdict.

[GlosRFC]

That's probably likely. A note isn't the only evidence that a Coroner needs as they can use medical notes and the evidence of other witnesses that might point to depression and/or suicidal tendencies in the past.

One thing about inquests is that they're not supposed to apportion blame, or indicate that anyone is criminally or civilly liable, yet that's become increasingly common particularly in cases where the Armed Forces are involved.

[Win2Win]

String a rope up on the ceiling and hanging yourself by it is not really something that happens by accident is it?

[susanwells]

But it has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt that someone else did NOT do it..and it is actually possible to hang someone else.. I`m writing a crime novel featuring it now !! :hearty

[scoobydoo]

Found this on Coroners in the UK; http://www.keithmccarthy.co.uk/pathology.htm

I guess this is why many get open verdicts.


As in a normal trial, a verdict is given and may be one of the following

Natural Causes
(requiring a standard of proof no greater than a balance of probabilities)

Suicide
(which must be proven ‘beyond reasonable doubt’)

Accidental Death
(requiring a standard of proof no greater than a balance of probabilities)

Misadventure
(when the death resulted from the deceased’s own actions, and which requires a standard of proof no greater than a balance of probabilities)

Open Verdict
(when the evidence does not fully disclose the means whereby death arose)

Industrial Disease

Stillbirth

Lawful killing
(which is the result of an action, justified in law)

Unlawful Killing
(which must be proven 'beyond reasonable doubt.' This verdict does not imply guilt of any particular party but clearly must interpreted in conjunction with parallel police investigations)

Neglect
(which requires a gross failure to provide the very basics of life - including medicine - on a non-transient basis and which requires a standard of proof no greater than a balance of probabilities)

[GlosRFC]

Just what I was saying...only two of the possible verdicts must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Anything less and an Open verdict must be returned.

There are some missing verdicts from that list, all of which only require a standard of proof no greater than the balance of probabilities:
Dependence on Drugs/Non-dependent Misuse of Drugs
Want of Attention at Birth
Attempted/Self-induced Abortion
And, surprisingly perhaps, Execution of Sentence of Death!

Neglect isn't actually a verdict but can, when warranted, be applied to a Natural Causes or a Want of Attention at Birth verdict with a statement to the effect that the cause of death was aggravated by a lack of care or self neglect.

As for finding a body dangling from a rope, there are a host of reasons other than suicide including a prank that went wrong; an auto-erotic sexual act; murder disguised as suicide; falling off a ladder and wrapping your head around the washing line, etc.