[1] JoeGoaUK says: "Well, going by various pros and cons, it appears that 'alcohol' is the main culprit."
[2] Soter's comment: Poor understanding of the alcohol disease. Police feel they can make the alcoholic straight by scaring the shit out of him. Comment: It matters little, I believe, what/who was the "main culprit". What matters is IF the police assaulted Cipriano. Allow me to provide you with an example: If two gundas are fighting it out on the street and, in the midst of their fight, one of them (Ladrao) unintentionally knock down an elderly woman and she develops a skull fracture which was missed by the doctors ....and she dies. Will Ladrao not be 'culpable' for the death of this lady? (The doctors' negligence having been noted and hopefully punished). If your answer is NO, please look up the "Thin Skull" or "‘Take Your Victim As You Find Them" principle. If your answer is YES, please advise why the Goa Police should not be culpable. I can understand the predicament of the forensic chaps. But all they are required to do in this case is identify the CAUSE of death. They are not there to speculate. The case law is quite clear - IF the police assaulted Cipriano. If the forensic chaps are not sure, they should seek a second opinion. BUT, theirs is not the role of exonerating the police. Just present the facts, chaps ....and let the courts decide. (Whatever your opinion of the courts). BTW: It is quite inappropriate and stupidly sensational to use the subject title "Who killed Cipriano?" unless somebody knows that Cipriano was "killed". The appropriate subject title would be "What caused Cipriano to die?" Then, one can start the business of culpability. jc
