Authorities say Duquesne University student Dakota James drowned; rule death an accident |

Authorities say Duquesne University student Dakota James drowned; rule death an accident

Pittsburgh Department of Public Safety
Photos provided by the Pittsburgh Department of Public Safety show missing Duquesne University graduate student Dakota James.

Dakota James — the Duquesne University student whose body was found floating in the Ohio River in early March — died of an accidental drowning, the Allegheny County Medical Examiner’s office said Thursday.

The decision rules out foul play in the death of James, 23, who went missing Jan. 25 after a night out with coworkers in Downtown Pittsburgh.

After a six-week search, Robinson police and a water rescue crew pulled his body from the Ohio River near Neville Island on March 6 .

Pittsburgh police cannot provide further details about the circumstances of his death, Department of Public Safety spokeswoman Sonya Toler said Thursday.

When his body was found , police did not describe the evidence that allowed investigators to identify James, but they said he was wearing the same clothes he wore the night he disappeared: a red hoodie, jeans and a Columbia jacket.

Security footage showed some of his movements upon parting ways with friends the evening of Jan. 25, but the trail went cold at Fort Duquesne Boulevard, police said.

The footage showed James walking through Katz Plaza, heading toward Fort Duquesne Boulevard. James had lived in an apartment in the North Side.

Natasha Lindstrom is a Tribune-Review staff writer.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.