Okay, can someone explain to me how a forensic investigator can determine someone had a heart attack before he was eaten by a bear when they aren't even sure exactly when all this happened? Doesn't sound like there was enough left to identify him much less autopsy him by the statement above.
Bob
If I may, they are just trying to make the family feel better on their father (or whatever) being eaten by a black bear. If they couldn't determine it was a heart attack, he would somehow get the blame anyway. "He surprised the bear" "He interrupted the bear" "He got between the bear and his cub or her" They are never going to say, geez I guess we should allow more hunting so bears are afraid of people. I have NEVER heard F&G say something like that. The person that was mauled/eaten/abused (whatever) is always at fault in their eyes. I'm tired of it.
