OK, correction, make that two different persons with one who changed her mind.
But the question remains. No one among these persons or any other related to this crash/death has suggested in the least that Fuddy's death was the result of criminal activity; so why does it matter if the "true" cause of her was drowning versus arrhythmia versus internal trauma? A plane crash suffered by time in water in 5 foot waves could plausibly result in any of these options. Unless you're an immediate family member someday having to answer a medical form question ("Has anyone in your family suffered from heart condition or disease?"), the distinction seems utterly irrelevant.
The article doesn't tackle this question. Perhaps you can try.
Professionals in the field of search and rescue, coroners and police detectives, who are also deputy coroners, don’t operate by guessing at the cause of death. I do not believe you would find that “guessing” is an option in any of their training when it comes to assigning cause of death. So, once you give them, or their professions some credibility, the disparate three causes of death make absolutely no sense. It clearly is a case that calls for investigation which the law demands so why not just do it?