If there were bite marks on eyes, eyebrows, noses, lips and inside of the mouth, a coroner could absolutely know whether or not they came from animal/human. I don't believe there wasn't enough evidence at the time to determine where the wound came from (bitemark analysis) it was simply omitted. It's a pretty crappy autopsy report that mentions the missing lips, eyebrows, eyeballs and tongue and makes no attempt to explain the cause. If the wounds were postmortem, we would be able to see evidence or lack of it, of animal activity on the corpse. If cuts are made by straight edge sharp force traumas (to eyes, mouth, eyelids, tongue etc.) or not, it is the coroner's job to indicate that. Maybe they didn't have that capacity in '59. If so, its not the coroner's fault but leaves a big gaping hole as to what happened here which could have been filled with many more helpful details. Today, if a coroner simply wrote 'tongue is absent' on an autopsy without any further explanation, they'd be fired. Vozrozdhenny left many details that should have been in the reports out, as far as today's forensic pathology's standards go that is. And finally, I especially love one of the concluding remarks in Lyuda's autopsy where it says, "some internal organs taken." Taken? He doesn't say absent, or missing, as he did earlier in the report, but taken. We can play the semantics game all we want but that is one bizarre choice of words.