Coroner: Cause of death of Brendan Santo is “unclear”

EAST LANSING, Michigan. – Should the case surrounding Brendan Santo’s death have been closed?

Santo was on campus at Michigan State University to attend a football game when he disappeared. He was missing for 84 days before his body was found in the Red Cedar River. His death was ruled an accidental drowning, but many questions still remain unanswered.

Local 4 Investigator Karen Drew obtained the autopsy report and police reports and spoke with a medical examiner who said it would have been better to leave the case open and not close it.

Karen Drew's extensive coverage of this case includes interviews with a medical examiner and a private investigator. The story begins airing Monday, September 9, 2024 at 5:30 p.m. on Local 4 and Local 4+.

—> Here's a look at the case so far.

Forensic pathologist in the autopsy report

Brendan Santo's autopsy report lists the official cause of death as accidental drowning.

According to the report, no water was found in his lungs. However, “traces of a brown, viscous liquid and granular material” were found in his stomach.

Local 4 Investigator Karen Drew took the report to Oakland County Medical Examiner Ljubisa Dragovic for his professional opinion.

Here is what Dragovic said:

What about the lungs?

“Well, that's a big question. Not everyone who is underwater and found underwater has drowned. A person may be dead before they are placed in the body of water. Generally, careful evaluation of all possible and available materials will lead to a conclusion. If no conclusion is possible, the case is best left undetermined and not closed because there is reasonable suspicion that someone may have caused a less visible or less obvious injury in a decomposed situation where decomposed remains have been found and a crime cannot be safely ruled out. This is where due diligence comes in.”

So it is not solved?

“Oh no, quite the opposite. To announce that the problem is solved, to eradicate it, is not fair in any way. Under any circumstances and it does not meet the most important medical, legal death investigation, because we have to provide the answer, the answer to the cause of death, the mechanism of death and the manner of death.”

And this question is not answered in this report?

“The report assumes that the young man drowned and the circumstances are unclear. If alcohol, drugs or other significant events are involved, my understanding is that this was linked to an important social and public sporting event at the time. You have to be focused and follow this until you have the opportunity – maybe, maybe you can't necessarily get all the answers, you can't get all the answers to the questions that may be asked. But that doesn't mean you have the opportunity to put it away and not think about it anymore. For me, this is an open case, and it should be an open case for everyone, until you have the opportunity to first give closure to the family members and then resolve the matter … because it is an unnatural death with unanswered questions.”

Is there a glaring example that worries you?

“Well, there is no evidence that this young man drowned. The fact that his body was found in the water several months after his disappearance does not mean, under these circumstances, that he drowned. And that is the crucial, unanswered question that triggers all the consequences and all the concerns and all the reasons for this investigation.”

Just because you are found in a body of water doesn't mean you will drown in a body of water?

“Drowning is a diagnosis of exclusion. So anything and everything is considered, and you can't be sure how much the tissue in a person's remains has changed due to decomposition. You can't rely on that and then say, 'Oh, I didn't notice any injuries, so it must be drowning.' Well, it's not. And it's not a satisfactory answer and it needs to be followed up.”

If it had drowned, what would we have seen?

“Well, if you look at the rest of the findings in the body – although there is decomposition, there are no significant “There's no evidence that someone inhaled a significant amount of water into their lungs. To drown, you have to have suffocated because the water blocks the airway, clogs the alveoli and fills the alveoli, and if someone is unconscious, that can happen very quickly. If someone is not unconscious and struggling, they can have water in their stomach because they're having to swallow because they're struggling to stay afloat and get enough breath. So there are all kinds of special circumstances when the body ends up in the water, but if the body ends up in the water lifeless, then none of that is present and that should be a red flag and you're like, 'Hey, that could have been something else.' And off the top of my head, I can't give you any possibilities, but there are possibilities and those possibilities need to be looked at.”

—> Full coverage of this case can be found here.