“wouldn’t have had time to breathe water into her lunqs.”
Water could still be in her lungs if her mouth was open. Waves breaking over her face would have allowed water to get into the lungs.
Here is an article on drowning, read the section labeled diagnosis.
http://www.forensicpathologyonline.com/E-Book/asphyxia/drowning
If she had water in her lunqs then why would the preliminary diagnosis be changed from drowning to cardiac arrhythmia? There was nothing physical that they could have seen in the autopsy which would have indicated cardiac arrhythmia like the water in the lungs would indicate drowning. They never asked to see medical records which would have indicated whether she had heart problems. And they never did the enzyme test which would have conclusively proven cardiac arrhythmia.
So Harle (if she had been there to do the autopsy) supposedly threw out the one piece of physical evidence she had and chose a different cause of death without any physical evidence to back up the change.
But this is all just spinning around and around, because I’ve already said this stuff before, and it just gets ignored. Like a puppy chasing its tail.