Andituk…
Have you read the report? Both the second and third autopsy based their findings on a mistake in the report of the first autopsy. There is no evidence of an abdominal haemorrhage
"Visible signs" no, but could something have remained undetected given they were looking for a "significant rupture"?
Unfortunately it's no longer possible to test the fluid for confirmation, as our good doctor failed to retain it or take a sample – so being "in the best position to have considered the nature of the fluid he had observed and removed" we just have to take him at his word – "staining".
Now given his track record, I sort of lose a little bit of confidence.
But yeah, I'm probably being very sceptical!