“…There is no morphological (whether it be radiological, macroscopic, or microscopic) or biochemical (whether it be metabolic, or metabolomic) finding that allows, at least at the current state of knowledge and when considered individually and decontextualized, for a categorical statement that "the death was a consequence of exposure to low temperature." The most established (and most scientifically correct, as could be upheld in court) practice remains, therefore, the collection and combination of as many morphological and biochemical results as possible, which can, when examined as a whole, corroborate, or not contradict, the sole/prevalent/contributing role that exposure to cold has had (or may have had) in the pathogenesis of the death (28)(29)(30). Postmortem morphological data, whether they be radiological (increased aerated lung percentage), macroscopic (frost erythema, Wischnewsky spots within the gastric mucosa), microscopic (Armanni-Ebstein kidney) or biochemical (increased urinary catecholamines and metanephrines, increased blood ketones, increased urinary and postmortem serum cortisol, increased free fatty acids in the postmortem serum), do not necessarily indicate with certainty that the death is the result of exposure to low temperatures, even if they may allow one to better direct the diagnosis, especially in cases for which there is suggestive circumstantial evidence, and in the absence of other causes of death (1,28,29,(31)(32)(33).…”