Circumstances surrounding death of Adriana suspicious

May 30, 2025 News

---

…US pathologist urges thorough probe

…will rely on tests from first autopsy to determine cause of death

By Shania Williams

Kaieteur News- Chief Medical Examiner of Gwinnett County, Atlanta, Georgia, Dr. Carol Terry, says that only a thorough investigation will determine whether 11-year-old Adriana Younge was murdered or died from drowning.

The pathologist stated that  circumstances surrounding Adriana’s case are “highly suspicious” and cannot be conclusively attributed to drowning at this time. Dr. Terry, who performed a second autopsy on Adriana’s body on Thursday, shared her preliminary findings in a live interview with journalist Travis Chase.

In the live interview, Dr Terry stated that an autopsy cannot definitively determine drowning. “At this point in time, I would not come to that conclusion. I think that there’s a lot of information that needs to be gained, a lot of investigation that needs to be done. Drowning is a diagnosis of exclusion. And by that, it means that you have to exclude other potential  causes of death. And oftentimes when a body is found in water, the assumption is that the person has drowned,” she said.

She further explained that drowning cannot be immediately determined upon opening the body for examination, “There is nothing in an autopsy that is diagnostic of drowning. There are certain things we can see that would be supportive of drowning, but they are not uniform. People talk about fluid in the lungs. You may or may not have that. People will talk about fluid in the sphenoid sinus, which is a sinus that’s at the base of the skull. Again, you may or may not have that with drowning.”

Further, Dr. Terry revealed that based on the information she received regarding the circumstances of Adriana’s death, she deemed the case highly suspicious and urged that a thorough investigation be conducted to fully determine what happened. “What I have been told regarding the circumstances are so suspicious that I really think that there needs to be a very thorough investigation.”

Among those concerns was the discovery of Adriana’s body in a hotel pool that had already been searched.

“That is disturbing because I don’t think you can simply write it off as this child drowned. You’ve got to be concerned. Did she die sometime earlier, and then was placed in the pool? Because there’s not going to be any good way to discern whether or not that happened.”

However, Dr. Terry noted that she has not yet received the results of the toxicology report or any additional testing conducted during the first autopsy, and emphasised that these findings will be critical to forming a more accurate conclusion.  So far, based on the circumstances shared with her, she expressed reluctance to conclude that Adriana drowned, stating, “Yes, I would. Based on the circumstances that are reported to me, I would.”

As such, Dr. Terry emphasised the need to examine toxicology reports, potential drug findings, and signs of sexual assault, stating, “Things like this need to be considered and looked at, given the circumstances reported to me.”

 

Second autopsy was compromised

During her examination, Dr. Terry revealed that Adriana’s body had lost significant forensic value and that the second autopsy was compromised.

“The examination that I had the opportunity to do is compromised at this point because, again, this is a second autopsy,” Dr. Terry explained. “We have issues of artefacts introduced by the first autopsy, decomposition that has taken place, and embalming that has occurred. All of these factors introduce artefacts to the body and compromise the examination to some extent.”

However, Dr. Terry did note a potentially significant detail, she observed that parts of Adriana’s neck tissues were still soft, suggesting that this area may not have been fully examined during the first autopsy.

“Looking at the structures of the neck… they still had a good bit of soft tissue… I wanted to expose them more so that there’s no question these structures were not broken,” she said.

The doctor said too that there was no evidence of trauma on the body, but stated that doesn’t rule out murder.

“Just because I don’t see any physical manifestation of trauma doesn’t mean that someone was not murdered. There are ways in which you can kill someone and not leave any demonstrable trauma on the body. Basically, you just have to interfere with their ability to breathe.

And in some cases, it may involve somehow constricting their chest or maybe putting pressure on their neck. And you don’t always wind up breaking structures in the neck or bruising structures in the neck. So sometimes you can have asphyxial type deaths or deaths where adequate blood flow and oxygen doesn’t get to the brain and not leave any trauma to the body.”

Dr. Terry noted however, that she is still in the process of collecting specimens in case additional testing is required.

“Again, realizing the optimal specimens are from the first examination, but I’m conducting this examination keeping in mind that I’m not going to have a chance to go back. So anything I need to do, I need to do at this point in time. I think I may have over-collected, but again, I don’t get a second chance to be thorough,” she explained.

She further acknowledged that the first autopsy, conducted by a team of three pathologists, appeared to have been performed very thoroughly.

“By the time I do a second autopsy, artefacts have already been introduced from the first autopsy, and in this case, also from embalming,” Dr. Terry said. “But in doing this examination, I first wanted to ensure that the initial autopsy was done correctly and thoroughly — and it appeared that it was. There are some minor differences in dissection techniques, but I believe the first examination was conducted thoroughly.”

 

Looking ahead

Looking ahead, Dr. Terry stated that her next step is to complete her report and review the results from the first autopsy.

“I will look at slides from the tissue under the microscope. These, I don’t think, are going to be helpful in advancing the investigation,” she explained. “For me, the more critical information will come from the results of the first examination and any testing that was done in connection with it.”

Dr. Terry emphasised the importance of the initial autopsy findings, “As I said, my role here was essentially performing a quality control check through the second autopsy. From what I observed, the first examination was technically done very competently and thoroughly. I would now like to see what those results are.”

 

Guyana Police

Despite Dr. Terry’s call for further inquiry, the Guyana Police Force recently released a report stating there was no evidence of foul play. According to police, the first autopsy conducted by a team of three international pathologists concluded that Adriana’s death was consistent with drowning, and there were no signs of trauma, assault, or criminal activity.

The police said too that the findings support an earlier report submitted by Mr. Leonard McCoshan, a (retired) Royal Canadian Mounted Police investigator, which concluded that there is “no evidence of foul play by persons named or unnamed during the investigation.”

According to the police, a comprehensive postmortem examination, including toxicology and DNA testing, was carried out. Key findings include:

 

• No acute injuries or trauma.
• Ethanol levels consistent with postmortem decomposition.
• Negative sexual assault kit and DNA analysis.
• Skin and airway changes aligned with prolonged submersion.
• No evidence of restraint, struggle, or body relocation.

Police say the pathologists concluded Adriana likely sank and surfaced later due to natural decomposition processes in tropical conditions.

Adriana Younge’s body was discovered on April 24, 2025, in a swimming pool at the Double Day International Hotel. Her remains were later flown to the United States for a second independent autopsy after her family rejected the findings of the initial examination.

---

---