Problem
Looking at the scenario described, two competing theories (stories) develop. The first is that of the investigators, who believe that the suspect killed his wife, put her body in the truck, drove to the remote area, and buried the body before attempting to hide out in the hotel where he was arrested. The other story is that of the suspect, who claims that although he did argue with his wife and drive off in a rage, he did not kill her. He claims that he was feeling sick and wanted to get away from arguing and stayed in the hotel for a few days to rest and to give his wife time to "settle down" after their argument. He is adamant that she was alive and well when he left her at the house, alone. He says that she suffered from depression and had a bad drug problem and used large amounts of crystal meth.
A thorough autopsy and determines through DNA analysis that the deceased is the wife of the couple in question. The forensic pathologist finds evidence of blunt force trauma around the head. The report also notes abrasions and bruising on the face and arms that were likely inflicted near the time of death (perimortem). There is no evidence of a gunshot wound and no livor or rigor mortis. Decomposition was advanced, and it was not possible to determine stomach contents. No signs of diseases such as heart disease were found. Samples were collected and sent to the toxicology lab for further analysis.
Do the autopsy findings tend to support or refute the two competing versions of the event? Why? Why not?
If your answer(s) is/are dependant upon the result(s) of analysis(es) of any of the evidence, or if any further analysis of any of the evidence, or crime scenes is required, you should identify this in your answer and indicate what further analysis and/or testing you would require as well.