Coroner Stories

Dianna writes:

My sister recently was discovered by her husband , hanging in the barn. She lived in a rural setting and was isolated. There was a 2 year history of spousal abuse and in fact her husband had been charged and was convicted of assult against by sister. He served 6 weeks in jail, was on probation and required to receive treatment for anger management. I recently returned from a meeting to speak with the law enforcement who dealt with the case. They informed me that they were aware of a 2 year history of spousal abuse. They stated that they were wary when they were called to the scene because of the history. They said they could find no evidence that there was foul play involved and that it was a simple suicide by hanging. There was table at the scene with a large plastic drum on top. They said they saw a footprint in the dust and oil on the drum but did not check to see that it matched her shoe size (which was small for an adult - size 5) They also said that one of her shoes lay approx 20 feet from the body. They assumed that she had kicked off the shoe in her struggle. They also stated that there was no rigor mortis of the body.

After phoning the coroner, I was told that I could not ask for a full autopsy and in fact they did only a superficial or external autopsy. They did say that there was no tissue under the finger nails and no scratches or marks on her neck other than the ligature mark.. My question is … if she struggled as she died enough to kick off her shoe would she not have had some sign of grabbing the rope or trying to loosen it from her neck. I understand that in a short drop hanging, regardless of how committed the individual is to taking their life there is an automatic response to preserving her airway. The only toxicology study they did was for blood alchohol level. Nothing else. My second question is why would they not do a complete autopsy when there was a history of spousal abuse, she was isolated and found by her husband. Why did they not do a full toxicology screen? They also did not estimate the time of death. I would really appreciate any answer you could provide me with especially in what they look for in a short drop hanging. Thank you so much.

Dianna:

Not having worked the scene myself or having access to all the information, I don’t feel comfortable commenting on the particular circumstances of the death. I can however shed a little light on your questions about how the case was handled based on the general procedures of most coroner and medical examiner offices.

The reason you were likely told that you couldn’t ask for a full autopsy is that the general public doesn’t have the legal authority to request an autopsy. In many cases where there is an obvious cause of death like a gunshot wound, a crushed chest, or in your sister’s case a ligature around the neck, an autopsy isn’t deemed necessary to determine why the death occurred. Reason being is that all an autopsy is going to accomplish is to verify that someone died as a result of their trauma. That is why the extent of the coroner/M.E. investigation may only involve an external examination.

The best comparison is to think of a vehicle in a car crash. A mechanic doesn’t need to tear down the motor to figure out why the car doesn’t run when the engine has been pushed into the cab of the vehicle.

If I were in your position, I’m sure I too would be shocked that no one felt a full autopsy was warranted when taking into account the spousal abuse and isolation that were involved. However in my position, I understand that forensic pathology is limited in its application. In cases with no sign of trauma or foul play, the coroner/M.E. determines both the cause and the manner of death. In traumatic or suspicious cases, they only determine the cause of death and rely primarily on the law enforcement agency’s investigation when classifying the manner of death.

In other the words the coroner speaks for why the person died and law enforcement speaks for how the person came to be injured in the first place. The point here is that the coroner can only account for the cause of death. Neither an external exam nor an autopsy are going to tell how a person came to be injured or whether they were “helped along‿ with the circumstances leading to their death. Many law enforcement agencies have felt your frustration when their request for a full autopsy on an individual with a ligature or a hard contact gunshot wound to the head is denied. They are told what many families are told—an autopsy is only going to confirm that which is already known. Beyond that, any involvement on the part of anyone else is a criminal matter and by law falls under the jurisdiction of law enforcement.

The coroner/M.E. could have interviewed the husband on issues related to the how your sister was found, but does not have the legal authority to treat him as a suspect. Typically the end result is that in traumatic cases, the coroner/M.E. isn’t likely to officially classify a death as suspicious when it conflicts with the investigation of law enforcement. That’s not to suggest a conspiracy though. It’s just that the coroner has no evidence to prove otherwise. They may have a different opinion or a gut feeling, that something is amiss, but they can’t (or at the very least shouldn’t) base their conclusion on speculation. On the other hand, law enforcement tends to rely heavily on the impression of the coroner—if the coroner isn’t comfortable then law enforcement generally isn’t either.

As for the toxicology study, in cases where there is an obvious external cause of death a full tox screen is rarely done—the reason being that positive test results won’t do anything to change the manner of death. If someone puts a gun in their mouth and pulls the trigger, a likely cause of death is “Intraoral Gunshot‿ with a manner of “Suicide.‿ There may in fact have been drug or alcohol involvement that affected the person’s sense of reason, but the bottom line is that the person took their own life and the death is therefore ruled a suicide. Using the mechanic analogy again, the wrecked car may have had faulty brakes which played a major role in the crash, but the reason the car no longer runs isn’t damage to the brakes, it’s the damage to the car.

I understand that the presence of foreign substances in a person’s system may be of key interest to a family member who is trying to come to terms with what their loved one’s state of mind may have been when committing suicide, but for medicolegal investigative purposes it is essentially irrelevant. Specimens are typically held by a tox lab for a certain period before they are destroyed. If the family wishes to obtain samples for private testing, they can usually do so with a court order.

For information on the time of death issue, here’s a paragraph from “Agencies, Answers, and Assumptions.‿

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.

Hopefully this information helps you in some way.

A Douglas

Jayne wrote:

I think it’s creepier going under the house than finding the bones. I’m very claustrophobic. I have a question for you: Back in 1991 (in Hermann, MO) my dad bought this old general store that also had a ballroom and small stage. My brothers and I were exploring the ballroom which was filled with all sorts of neat things left behind years ago. I got the fright of my life when I found a box, opened it, and three skulls on top of a pile of costumes were staring up at me. Although we called the police, they sent over the coroner who just picked up the bones and left. We did find out that they were human, but that was it. It seemed odd that we never heard anything more and there seemed to be no investigation. Neither was there any mention in the news. I know you don’t have the answer, but would just like your point of view on this. Was this handled normally? Or was it small town indifference toward old bones? How would such a discovery be handled (such as the bones under the house) if bones were human?

Jayne:

I hate to make assumptions without knowing all the particulars of the case, but since you asked for my point of view it sounds fairly normal to me. In many cases, about the only thing a coroner/medical examiner can do with certain skeletal remains is determine the sex, race, gender, and age of the deceased based on certain skeletal traits and measurements. A dental comparison or DNA extraction might be possible, but unless there are dental records or an existing DNA profile from a suspected individual to compare with, then all the dental restorations or genetic material in the world is of little value.

Unless there was an apparent traumatic injury to one of the skulls, chances are there was very little the coroner/medical examiner could do to determine the cause and manner of death when the rest of the remains are absent. As such, the investigation—which is really just a partial examination—may not yield anything worth reporting and give the impression that no investigation was conducted. I would guess that the skulls were sealed up and stored at the morgue until a positive I.D. could be made.

Unless the media knew specifically that the skulls were discovered, they wouldn’t have had a reason to call the morgue and ask for information regarding them, so it’s likely there was nothing ever reported in the news.

When it comes to the scene detailed in “Them Bones‿, if I had determined that the bones were human, I would have backed out of the scene immediately and contacted the police department’s crime scene unit to see if they wanted to document the scene before I proceeded. From there, we would work the scene as thoroughly as we would any other suspicious death. Believe it or not, bones are found quite frequently. Fortunately they are almost always determined to be non-human.

A Douglas

I just found several comments that were somehow diverted into my “spam‿ folder. I’ve now posted all of them with the exception of a few that I’ll be responding to in “post‿ form here on the main page as soon as I can.

Kate asked:

Do you generally take photos from all angles when picking up a body, or just a few? I’ve often found them to be very useful, though they don’t always seem so right at first.

Kate:

We generally take quite a few photos of the decedent, the scene, and any obvious or suspected mechanism of death. Oftentimes the law enforcement agency working the death takes photos of the scene, but we still take our own photos because what we find to be of interest may differ from what they elect to photograph. If we rely on other agencies’ photos, then we risk not getting the photographic documentation we may need later on in our investigation. Plus, when working with some of the smaller agencies, our camera may be the only camera at the scene.

As for the body, we generally take distant photos that show the body in relationship to the overall scene. We then take a couple of photos of the body itself in full frame and an i.d. photo of the face.

If there is an obvious or suspected mechanism of death (firearm, ligature, pill bottles, aerosol cans, etc.) or other pertinent evidence present, then we photograph those as well. At minimum, we like to get a shot of the mechanism or evidence in relation to the body, an overall photo of the item, and a close up of any evidence on the article itself (such as blowback on a gun or vomitus containing macerated pills).

If there are any fatally traumatic injuries to the body, then we get a close up shot of the injury with an anatomical landmark for reference. Of course these injuries are photographed at the morgue as well, but taking photos of them at the scene ensures that they are documented prior to being disturbed during transport.

Thanks to digital photography, we’re able to take as many scene photos as we like without the added expense of developing and we are able to see the photographed image as we take them. When digital photos were first used at crime scenes, there were grumblings about their technical susceptibility to being altered, but we’ve found them to be just as admissible in court as the old 35mm photos. When it comes down to it, it is the testimony of the expert on the witness stand that “vouches‿ for the photos as an accurate representation of the actual scene.

These of course are just the broad strokes of how we document scenes photographically and should only be perceived as a thumbnail sketch of forensic photography.

A Douglas