• TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
  • Follow
    • Follow
    • facebook
    • twitter
    • google+
    • instagram
    • youtube
Hearst Corporation
  • TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
Forums
  • Register
  • Login
  • Forums
  • General Discussion Forums
  • General Discussion
Celebrity post mortem
<<
<
1 of 3
>>
>
pearlsandplums
31-12-2016
George Michael's pm was inconclusive. I don't actually care what he died from, as it's none of my business, but it got me thinking.
Say a figure in the public eye died suddenly. Does the cause of death have to be announced? Is it public knowledge or do the family opt to release the information? If it was something that the family didn't want to be revealed can they block it being published in the papers?
Deep Purple
31-12-2016
If an Inquest is opened, then the information becomes public. In most cases that doesn't happen, therefore it is not made public.

It looks likely an Inquest will be opened and adjourned here, until the cause of death is established, therefore it would become public knowledge.

The Coroner is in charge of what happen if a death is reported to them.
pearlsandplums
31-12-2016
Originally Posted by Deep Purple:
“If an Inquest is opened, then the information becomes public. In most cases that doesn't happen, therefore it is not made public.

It looks likely an Inquest will be opened and adjourned here, until the cause of death is established, therefore it would become public knowledge.”

Thanks. It was just something I didn't know. I can't imagine Michael hutchence's family wanted his cause of death announced.
Deep Purple
31-12-2016
Originally Posted by pearlsandplums:
“Thanks. It was just something I didn't know. I can't imagine Michael hutchence's family wanted his cause of death announced.”

That would certainly have required a full Inquest, therefore the details would be heard in a Coroners Court, and subject to full reporting, which it was.

In the case Of George Michael, it is likely further toxicology tests etc will identify a cause that will mean a full Inquest will not be needed.
anne_666
31-12-2016
Originally Posted by pearlsandplums:
“Thanks. It was just something I didn't know. I can't imagine Michael hutchence's family wanted his cause of death announced.”

Why do you think that? They loved him, were very proud of the person he was and his achievements and his death was a terrible tragedy. Increasing awareness about mental illness, it's too often deadly consequences and drug abuse would be something many parents would want in the hope that it would prevent others suffering.
Jane Doh!
31-12-2016
Originally Posted by pearlsandplums:
“Thanks. It was just something I didn't know. I can't imagine Michael hutchence's family wanted his cause of death announced.”

Why? There's nothing shameful about mental illness and suicide.
pearlsandplums
31-12-2016
Originally Posted by Jane Doh!:
“Why? There's nothing shameful about mental illness and suicide.”

Apologies i thought it was stilll seen as auto erotic asphyxiation. I didn't know of the autopsy results
There's no shame in suicide or mental illness.
zoepaulpenny
01-01-2017
Chances are now. He may of died from drug overdose..
WhatJoeThinks
01-01-2017
Originally Posted by anne_666:
“Why do you think that? They loved him, were very proud of the person he was and his achievements and his death was a terrible tragedy. Increasing awareness about mental illness, it's too often deadly consequences and drug abuse would be something many parents would want in the hope that it would prevent others suffering.”

Mental illness and drug abuse? I thought Hutchence died of the ol' "asphyxiwank gone wrong".
Brian The Dog
01-01-2017
Originally Posted by WhatJoeThinks:
“Mental illness and drug abuse? I thought Hutchence died of the ol' "asphyxiwank gone wrong".”

Thank you! "asphyxiwank" is now my word of the year.

Can't wait to use it!
Ovalteenie
01-01-2017
There will be a full inquest if he did not die of natural causes. As the postmortem was inconclusive ie did not find an obvious natural cause of death, there will be a coroner inquest which is a public hearing which anyone can attend.
sodavlac
01-01-2017
I did wonder if this thread was going to be putting forward a new idea for a reality tv show when I saw the title.

There actually was a televised post mortem not so long ago so it wouldn't have been such a leap. No slebs in that one though.
Jane Doh!
01-01-2017
Originally Posted by WhatJoeThinks:
“Mental illness and drug abuse? I thought Hutchence died of the ol' "asphyxiwank gone wrong".”

Only Paula Yates said it wasn't suicide.
Paulie Walnuts
01-01-2017
Originally Posted by zoepaulpenny:
“Chances are now. He may of died from drug overdose..”

How on earth would you. Know that? Surely there would've. Been toxicology. Tests.
francie
01-01-2017
Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts:
“How on earth would you. Know that? Surely there would've. Been toxicology. Tests.”

Toxicology test results take a while, afaik.
WhatJoeThinks
01-01-2017
Originally Posted by Jane Doh!:
“Only Paula Yates said it wasn't suicide.”

Reading through the coroner's report his cause of death was recorded as "hanging", but considering that he was found on his knees I think it's pretty obvious what he was up to. And he was known to be... sexually adventurous.

Quote:
“It has been suggested the death resulted from an act of auto eroticism.

However, there is no forensic or other evidence to substantiate this suggestion.

I therefore discount that manner of death
.

On consideration of the entirety of the evidence I am satisfied Hutchence was in a severe depressed state on the morning of November 22, 1997.

Hutchence's blood showed traces of alcohol, cocaine, Prozac and prescription drugs.
This was due to a number of factors, including the relationship with Paula Yates and the pressure of the ongoing dispute with Sir Robert Geldof, combined with the effects of the substances that he had ingested at that time.

I am satisfied the cause of death was "hanging".

I am also satisfied there was no other person involved in causing the death.

Nothing will be gained by holding a formal inquest.”

WhatJoeThinks
01-01-2017
Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts:
“How on earth would you. Know that? Surely there would've. Been toxicology. Tests.”

I read that. Post. In the voice of. Bill Shatner.
Jane Doh!
02-01-2017
Originally Posted by WhatJoeThinks:
“Reading through the coroner's report his cause of death was recorded as "hanging", but considering that he was found on his knees I think it's pretty obvious what he was up to. And he was known to be... sexually adventurous.”

What does being on his knees have to do with anything?

Being sexually adventurous means nothing. I'll go with what the coroner reported and not a grieving lover or a gossip.
WhatJoeThinks
02-01-2017
Originally Posted by Jane Doh!:
“What does being on his knees have to do with anything?

Being sexually adventurous means nothing. I'll go with what the coroner reported and not a grieving lover or a gossip.”

The coroner found no proof that it was autoerotic, he didn't prove or even claim that it wasn't, just that he'd dismissed it on the grounds of no evidence. There was no proof of suicide either.

When people hang themselves they normally do it in such a way that they can't change their mind and stop. Or to put it another way, they do it in such a way that they need not provide continual effort in order to succeed. That usually involves 'dangling' with their feet off the ground. To hang yourself from a door hook, such that you'd have to apply continual pressure, makes it less practicable.

On the other hand, being naked on your knees behind the door would allow you to apply the desired amount of pressure for autoerotic asphyxiation while minimising the risk of death. Evidently, once his full weight rested on the belt buckle it did indeed break, but he'd already gone too far.
Jane Doh!
02-01-2017
Originally Posted by WhatJoeThinks:
“The coroner found no proof that it was autoerotic, he didn't prove or even claim that it wasn't, just that he'd dismissed it on the grounds of no evidence. There was no proof of suicide either.

When people hang themselves they normally do it in such a way that they can't change their mind and stop. Or to put it another way, they do it in such a way that they need not provide continual effort in order to succeed. That usually involves 'dangling' with their feet off the ground. To hang yourself from a door hook, such that you'd have to apply continual pressure, makes it less practicable.

On the other hand, being naked on your knees behind the door would allow you to apply the desired amount of pressure for autoerotic asphyxiation while minimising the risk of death. Evidently, once his full weight rested on the belt buckle it did indeed break, but he'd already gone too far.”

The only person who suggested this, as far as I'm aware, was Paula Yates.

You would not need to provide continual pressure if doing it from a door hook.
WhatJoeThinks
02-01-2017
Originally Posted by Jane Doh!:
“The only person who suggested this, as far as I'm aware, was Paula Yates.

You would not need to provide continual pressure if doing it from a door hook.”

While in a kneeling position he had to rest enough of his bodyweight on the belt to asphyxiate himself, but not so much that the belt would break. That takes some continual effort to control, which is not what people committing suicide want to do. The danger being that you might give yourself brain damage and survive.
Jane Doh!
02-01-2017
Originally Posted by WhatJoeThinks:
“While in a kneeling position he had to rest enough of his bodyweight on the belt to asphyxiate himself, but not so much that the belt would break. That takes some continual effort to control, which is not what people committing suicide want to do. The danger being that you might give yourself brain damage and survive.”

He wouldn't have been thinking about controlling it. He probably wouldn't have figured out how much weight he could put on the belt without it breaking. Very few people would.

The only person talking about it was Paula Yates. Nobody else, as far as I'm aware, so I'll stick with what I know.
WhatJoeThinks
02-01-2017
Originally Posted by Jane Doh!:
“He wouldn't have been thinking about controlling it. He probably wouldn't have figured out how much weight he could put on the belt without it breaking. Very few people would.

The only person talking about it was Paula Yates. Nobody else, as far as I'm aware, so I'll stick with what I know.”

My point exactly. I'd expect that most people who hang themselves would simply allow their entire bodyweight to rest on the noose, rather than holding back a little. I wouldn't expect them to go naked either.
Jane Doh!
02-01-2017
Originally Posted by WhatJoeThinks:
“My point exactly. I'd expect that most people who hang themselves would simply allow their entire bodyweight to rest on the noose, rather than holding back a little. I wouldn't expect them to go naked either.”

The coroner discounted that manner of death so I'm going to go with him. He's the expert, he's the one with all the facts.

What are you talking about when you say holding back a little?
SeasideLady
02-01-2017
Originally Posted by Jane Doh!:
“The coroner discounted that manner of death so I'm going to go with him. He's the expert, he's the one with all the facts.

What are you talking about when you say holding back a little?”


And why are you so impassioned about it ? He hanged himself 20 years ago and that's all there is to it.

A man's normal leather belt which would be 1 -2 " width would be easily capable of supporting a dead man's weight without snapping. A door hook's stability on the other hand is dependent obviously on how well it's secured to the door. A weakly attached hook may have given way which could have resulted in MH falling to the floor on his knees. However, if the hook was still in the door and the belt intact, it could be assumed that death was unintentional, due to auto-eroticism, and probably was. Surely those findings would have been mentioned in the coroner's report ?
<<
<
1 of 3
>>
>
VIEW DESKTOP SITE TOP

JOIN US HERE

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Hearst Corporation

Hearst Corporation

DIGITAL SPY, PART OF THE HEARST UK ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK

© 2015 Hearst Magazines UK is the trading name of the National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.

  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Complaints
  • Site Map