Coroner Stories

On my dads autopsy report it stated violent, unatural
death, means/weapon. What does this mean? It was
classified an accidential death. However, the above
description does not make me feel that way. Please
comment.

Thank you.

Sherry

Sherry:

Autopsy reports generally contain the same “matter of fact” terminology that is commonly found on death certificates–very literal terms that refer to broad classifications. In your father’s case, “violent” and “unnatural” are the literal but broad terms (and fairly redundant as “violent” essentially implies the death was “unnatural.” The primary reason these terms are used is that they need to be “codeable” or placed into broad categories for the purpose of generating statistical data at a later date. As such, these terms are helpful to the poor soul who enters death info all day, but they can be very confusing to family members.

For families, it is usually best to focus on the pathologist’s conclusion at the end of the autopsy report (may be titled differently, but serves the same purpose). It is in this summation that the pathologist gives their reason for determining the cause and manner of death and consequently selecting the categories used when certifying the death.

Keep in mind, the “cause of death” is the precipitating factor that leads to the death and the “manner of death” is how the cause is classified. For example, a common cause of death is “Gunshot Wound to the Head.” Based on the circumstances of how the shooting occurred, the manner of death could be homicide, suicide, accident, or unknown.

Based on what you’ve written, the words “violent, unnatural death” says to me that the death wasn’t natural. Such a statement requires a certain degree of specification–in this case a weapon is listed as the means. If your father had died in a car crash, the report would likely have read “violent, unnatural death, means/vehicle” classified as an accidental death. At any rate, neither of these abbreviated explanations offers much detail as to how the individual became injured. That’s why I encourage you–as I have others–to focus on the pathologist’s conclusion when trying to understand the logic they used in classifying the death.

Upon reading “violent, unnatural death, means/weapon” I assume that the weapon was a firearm. That’s understandable and fairly common. The only curious thing that jumps out at me is that the death was classified “accidental.” Please note I said “curious” and not “inaccurate”–I certainly don’t know enough to argue one way or the other. It’s just that (in my experience) accidental firearm deaths are fairly rare. That said, I am forced to assume there was some fairly concrete evidence that the shooting was truly accidental (such as statements from more than one witness).

Also keep in mind that the logic of the pathologist or jurisdictional policy may play a role in any manner of death determination. Here’s a somewhat timely example:

Let’s say Vice President Dick Cheney actually had shot and killed his hunting partner. In some jurisdictions, the death of the hunting partner would be classified as an accident by the coroner/medical examiner. That seems reasonable enough as the Vice President didn’t intentionally shoot and kill the man. The District Attorney’s office could still prosecute the case as a negligent homicide if they so chose.

In other jurisdictions, the death could be classified as a homicide by the certifying office. Some jurisdictions don’t get involved in the argument of “intent” when one person kills another. When one person takes the life of another, they call that a homicide regardless of whether the assailant intentionally killed the deceased. The District Attorney’s office could elect not to prosecute such an act based on the circumstances even though a death resulted.

It’s a little tricky to explain that words appearing to be so exact are in actuality fairly vague to those seeking answers or closure. I hope I’ve answered your question instead of confusing you more.

A Douglas