Naah, she's brown bread.
1. Post-mortem reports aren't routinely published in Britain. There was only a post-mortem examination done because she died in prison: there were no suspicious circumstances. She'd been ill for a long time with chest complaints and did not wish to be resuscitated.

2. There was no need for an inquest because the death was natural.

3. I agree that it'd be easy enough to photograph her corpse, and yes it probably was done, but a picture like that might be more valuable salted away for a few years. I think we'll see one or two 'exclusives' when certain parties are about to retire.
(Juan Quar is clinging to her front teeth on, Fri 2 Dec 2011, 10:01, 1 reply)

Wrong, Wrong and Wrong
1. Coroners reports are usually posted where there is public interest. Arguably there should have been plenty.

2. There should have been an inquest even if the results weren't going to be published.Anyone who dies in custody is routinely the subject of a coroner's inquest, if for no other reason than to rule out any malfeasance by the prison staff
This, for me is the smoking gun.

3) A snap of her body would have been worth the most a few days after her death. Any of the tabloids would have paid a small (or not so small) fortune for it...
(scruffygit has an enormous clock -, Sat 3 Dec 2011, 19:49, closed)