Archive for May, 2006

“Diagnosis Drowning”

Monday, May 8th, 2006

The following comment/question was posted by TCat .

I was wondering if you could tell me what a body of a child looks like after being in the water(drowned)for 2 weeks to 1 month. The weight 110lbs. Drowned or Murdered/ Sexually Assaulted? is the question. Fully clothed. Any criminal knows that water will wash evidence away, all you have to do is watch TV. What if the examiner does not do an accurate examination and the cause of death is ruled “AN ACCIDENTAL DROWNING” just because they can tell the body has been emerged into water for a long period of time when other evidence points to foul play? Would ligature marks show up? What about strangulation marks? Are they even looked for? I figure that it is easier to speculate drowning in a case like this and move on to the next case. 20 ft and icy?

Please reply

TCat,

Ideally, every case is treated as suspicious until evidence supporting such a suspicion is ruled out. Still, any death involving a child or a drowning is placed under even more scrutiny–if such a thing is possible (i.e., giving a case 120% instead of just 100%). That said, any recognizable signs of ligature marks and strangulation that remain visible–internal or external–should be recognized during the course of a standard postmortem examination.

The temperature of the water and the physiology of the individual dictate the extent and rate of progression of postmortem changes. From the two weeks to one month range you presented, I would expect to find extremely wrinkled skin on the hands and feet, bloating, skin slippage, and discoloration–but these characteristics are likely to progress more slowly in icy waters. Depending on the length of submersion and the condition of the body when found, there should be findings like edematous airways and enlarged lungs at autopsy that confirm a drowning took place rather than simply a disposal.

Even if a body was submerged for an extended period of time, assuming it was an accidental drowning would be as inaccurate as calling it a homicide without specific signs of evidence on which to base the classification. The possibility that exposure of the body to the elements may have “disguised” potential evidence is exactly the reason the death would be classified as unknown because a possibility exists that it could be either. In other words, an accident isn’t a “default diagnosis.” It should take as much evidence for a pathologist to rule a death as an accident as it does for them to rule a death as a homicide.

Water may wash away external trace evidence deposited on the body, but it doesn’t wash away trauma inflicted on the body or preserved within the body. As far as criminals and television are concerned, if criminals are watching television, it isn’t making them any smarter. Fortunately, most homicidal acts are committed on the spur of the moment with little effective premeditation on the part of the perpetrator. I say fortunately because it tends to make the crime easier for police to solve. Based on the resolution rate of television cases, you’d think criminals would learn to give up their profession altogether, but apparently they haven’t learned that either.

Soapbox Warning

On a personal note, I feel that any medical examiner who would find it “easier to speculate drowning in a case like this and move on to the next case” should move on to their next career.

A Douglas

“Agencies, Answers, and Assumptions”

Wednesday, May 3rd, 2006

With Sherry’s permission, here are three emails she sent to me after I responded to her original question in the post “Violent and Unnatural.? I’ve also included my responses.

Thanks for the clarification. Makes sense. First reasonable explanation I have received in 15 years since his passing. Yes, the puzzling part is that it was classified an accidental death yet the police report remain sealed and classified a suspicious death. Took me 7 years to get the police report and when I did most information was blacked out including a suspects name. Yet police never resolved the case.

Dad had a 2-1/2″ by 3/4″ hole in the back of his head on the left side. I raised many questions during that period of time. Coroner told me he didn’t know what the weapon was except it was a hammer. I thought the same as you about the gun. It was no accident I am positive of that.

What do you make of this one?

Again, thank you.

Sincerely,

Sherry

I’m sure that if I were in your shoes, I would find it alarming that one agency determined the manner as accidental while another agency maintained the death was suspicious. It seems incomprehensible that two separate agencies with two distinct groups of professionals specifically trained in their roles couldn’t come to some agreement.

It’s been my experience that medicolegal agencies and law enforcement agencies almost always reach the same conclusion at the end of the case. To a certain extent there is a symbiotic relationship between the two agencies. The medicolegal agency needs the investigative work of law enforcement and law enforcement needs the pathological diagnosis of the medicolegal agency.

That’s not to say there can’t be disagreement between the two. Law enforcement may suspect foul play in a child death, but if there is no evidence to confirm their suspicion, no self-respecting forensic pathologist is going to manufacture findings just to help law enforcement build a case.

Different agencies also have different departmental policies. A medical examiner system may classify alcohol related fatalities as accidents while a law enforcement agency or district attorney’s office may classify them as homicides.

I can’t offer any insight into the police report you received. Where I work, all of the details contained in our report are public record and available to anyone who requests a copy.

God bless you for taking your precious time to help me understand that miserable medical examiner’s report. I am blessed to have your comments. I have sent you an additional e-mail. Maybe some day you can answer that as well. Not one day in 15 years have I stopped that about that day my sweet Dad died and all the un-answered questions no one would provide. I’m no medical examiner or coroner but only an idiot would have believed the BS version they handed me.

Additionally, I had the foresight to collect and preserve evidence at the scene and have submitted it for forensic testing. Thank God for scientists and decent, honest professionals like you. In 1990 I had one sample tested and all I could get was that the DNA at that time belonged to only 9% of the population. Wasn’t my father’s as he belonged to 37.5% of the population. New age, new technology today, and my finger’s are crossed. Makes me want to get into forensics and pathology field.

Thanks again, my friend.

God Bless You Always.

Sincerely,

Sherry

I can’t imagine it serves as any consolation, but even in cases where the suspected events and motives are very cut and dried, family and friends are often still faced with numerous unanswered questions that can haunt them for the rest of their lives. I’ve dealt with a lot of family members (both satisfied and dissatisfied) and it appears to me that the best anyone can do is continue living their life with a strong belief that they are right no matter what anyone else says. That’s not to say that such a belief should consume your life, but hopefully will allow you to move on past the point that you feel everyone else must agree with you in order for you to have closure.

As for DNA, here is all I know about the subject, and all I ever plan to know—I know it exists, and I know there exists people that understand it so that I don’t have to. As such, I can’t shed a lot of light on any DNA issues other than G to C and A to T. That’s about the only detail I’ve retained from the seemingly numerous presentations on the subject I’ve endured.

My mind is racing from your comments and I thank you. The head injury I described to you is that consistent with a gunshot wound to the head? There are so many unanswered questions. Cops didn’t care, medical examiner didn’t care, and there wasn’t even an accurate time of death. Time of death was when they put him on the gurney and took him to the morgue. How ridiculous.

My dad deserved so much respect. He was a good, kind, decent, respectable businessman in our community. And, the best father in the world. Everyone always wanted my parents for their own. I could go on and on but I know you are very busy. Thanks for your help.

God Bless.

Sherry

As a general rule, I’ve long since avoided commenting on trauma that I didn’t examine first hand. Reason #1 is that I feel I’d be grossly misrepresenting my abilities if I were to do so. Reason #2 is that I feel anyone who doesn’t abide by Reason #1 has just ventured onto the path of becoming a medicolegal prostitute, also known as a “paid whore.? This is the kind of forensic “expert? who either blatantly manufactures findings or simply sees things a certain way for monetary or professional gain.

I may be missing something in the details you provided, but I’m curious as to what would lead the coroner to state “he didn’t know what the weapon was except it was a hammer.? I can only assume that the hole you described was the only hole in the head and that no projectile was discovered within. I can also only assume that there were no deposits from the weapon such as gunshot residue, powder burns, or stippling around the wound or signs of stellate tearing that would suggest that a weapon was involved. As you can see, there is a lot of room for assumption—another reason I don’t like to comment on things I haven’t witnessed myself or listen to anyone who does.

Among the countless ways that crime scene dramas misinform the general public, “time of death? is perhaps the most misleading. In most cases there simply aren’t enough solid physiological markers to establish an accurate time of death, and the longer someone has been dead, the more difficult it is to be as accurate as Hollywood portrays. As such, it is not uncommon for a person’s “time of death? to be listed as the time that they were found. The time of the original call to 911 is usually the first documented time and serves as a solid “found? time. Please refer to my post on “Postmortem Interval? for more information on the subject.

Good luck to you…

A Douglas