Exactly correct. That would have been the FIRST thing released.
Now I would not be surprised if they said “she was a diabetic and didn’t know it”.
It's obvious to anyone with even half a brain.
The questions are who killed her?,and why?
I'd bet dirty money and politics are behind it all.Although spousal involvment is quite common in murders and "suspicious death" cases.
Another thing:never threaten anyone with releasing information in hopes of changing their behavior;just either release the info or hope they never find out you know. Because if killing you will stop the release,guess what is most likely to happen.Get the info out to as many as you can and take steps to protect yourself.
I concur, the ‘diabetic’ idea would have been floated initially. And would have been easy to prove/disprove from toxicology/bloodwork. By this time, something like an aneurysm or stroke would also be known.
If the fire was a mechanical malfunction, she would have to be completely incapacitated to not be able to exit the vehicle.
Shouldn't blood sugar been one of the first tests run? I'd expect BAC, tox, and others looking for what might have contributed to a questionable cause of death.
“Now I would not be surprised if they said “she was a diabetic and didn’t know it”.
Remember way back, some secretary of Ron Brown was found apparently beaten to death in her office, with no pants? She was an unknown diabetic with some condition that looked like bruises, no foul play was suspected due to “unspecified health problems”.