“Autopsy Reports”

December 17th, 2005

Apologies for the delay since my last post. I’ve spent the last couple of weeks trying to catch up on emails and responding to comments. I’ve included one comment in particular (along with my response) that dealt with some issues I haven’t discussed before that may be of interest.

I found this article very interesting. I am looking into the death of my son, who died of an accidental overdose of morphine 2% ug/ml and codeine ug/ml. The corners’ report states he died between 0500 of 9/6 and 1320 9/7.

Liver mortis as positioned fixed; rigor mortis full body. There is as a statement of skin slippage. Dark gray discoloration around his neck.

He checked into a hotel, but had no identification.

There is more information if this would help assist in determining just what happened. You see he died in 1995 with no one in his family being notified. He was not married. And had left my home on 9/1/95 over 1200 miles from where he died.

Thank you for you response.

J

J:

Based on what you included in your email, there are a few basic observations I can make. I’m reluctant to speak with too much authority on the circumstances since obviously I wasn’t involved in the entire investigation. If I did, it would be a gross misrepresentation of my abilities, if not downright fraudulent.

Most coroners rely heavily on the particular amount of a substance in someone’s system when it comes to classifying the manner of death. A level that is classified as accidental is typically a range that is considered by the toxicological professional community as a level that is just above a recreational/therapeutic level. These levels are typically seen in those individuals with an extended history of substance abuse.

Suicidal or homicidal levels are generally considered to be those levels that are much higher than accidental levels. In those cases, the person dispensing the amount of the substance necessary to precipitate death wants to be sure they administer enough to “get the job done.”

As far as the “time of death” is concerned, it’s not uncommon for there to be a very large window of time in which the death is stated to have occurred. I would assume that your son was found at 1320 on 9/7 and last known alive around 0500 on 9/6 when he was last seen by another person or possibly that was the time he checked in. As such, the coroner is only able to state positively that the death occurred within that time frame.

Television dramas tend to give the impression that coroners are able to pinpoint time of death with great accuracy and in reality that simply isn’t the case. The most accurate “time of death” is when a doctor or nurse is present at the exact moment death is pronounced or when someone dies instantly in a witnessed event like a car crash or a shooting. Beyond that, most estimations of time of death are based on observations and experience and become more speculative the longer the person has been deceased. For more on the difficulty of establishing an exact time of death, please refer to my post “Postmortem Interval�?.

The notations of rigor and livor may help narrow this window somewhat, but their value depends on when they were observed. If they are observed at the scene, they are very relevant. If they aren’t observed until the body is seen at the morgue by the coroner, they are of very little value considering it may be the next day or the body may have spent time in the cooler before the coroner sees it. As such, the time lapse and the cooler temperature can affect the relevance of postmortem changes.

I’m afraid I haven’t been much help or added anything worthwhile, but I at least wanted to provide you with some insight. As you continue your search for answers, please keep in mind that autopsy reports are very effective for determining the cause of death but are very ineffective when it comes to answering the “why” and “how” questions that the living desperately seek answers to when coping with the loss of a loved one.

Personally, I haven’t been in the very unfortunate position that you have been placed in. I have however had the opportunity to work with countless family members in your position with questions that are difficult—and in some cases impossible—to answer. Good luck to you.

A Douglas

“What’s That Smell?”

November 25th, 2005

Shannon writes:

Recently, a man died in the apartment above mine. He was dead for several days - at first we thought his refrigerator died, and contacted our landlord. But, the next day, when blood and bodily fluids started dripping from our bathroom and kitchen ceiling - we telephoned the police.

A Hazmat team is currently working on removing the contaminated bits of the house, while we stay in a hotel.

Once they are finished, how concerned should we be that that awful smell will return - say, when the heat is cranked, or on a hot summer day?

Shannon:

Thanks for sharing your unique experience. I may have stood in pools of body fluids and have been dripped on by the same on numerous occasions, but I can’t imagine how revolting it would be if it happened in my own home.

I’ve always been amazed at how often it happens that someone isn’t discovered dead until the person in the adjoining apartment notices a foul smell. I’m equally amazed at how long that person can tolerate the smell before notifying anyone. I’ve worked scenes where the neighbor had put up with the smell for weeks. From my point of view, it seems to happen all the time. I suppose it’s so common because there are so many single people who live in apartments. It’s been my experience that there are many of these single folk living in relative isolation from the rest of the world. Virtually no one calls them or visits, so no one discovers them until they’ve been dead for quite some time. Ordinarily it’s the apartment manager who discovers them when the neighbors begin to complain.

“Crime Scene? clean up services and the like will generally remove all of the biohazardous material that is present. Pools of blood and other bodily fluids will be cleaned up. Bloodstains will be washed off of surfaces like walls and floors and those that are soaked into surfaces like carpet, padding, bedding, and furniture will simply be removed from the premises entirely and disposed of.

Of course, not every contaminated article can be removed from the scene. In your case, floor joists and such are likely stained but cannot be removed without great effort and expense. The stains on those will likely just be chemically neutralized so that there is no immediate contact threat.

As for the smell, I wouldn’t expect there to be any down the road unless some of the fluid made it’s way into your heating and air system and went undiscovered during the clean up. The smell might linger even after the offending by-products of human decomposition have been removed, but the only truly effective way to remove smell is time. Exposure to air circulation and scented candles can certainly speed up the process though.

Thanks again for the comment. I hope that answers your question.

A Douglas

“A Real Stiff”

November 10th, 2005

Hollywood has a long-standing history of misrepresenting “real life.” In general, people are more attractive and more successful and seem to have a lot fewer problems than the rest of us. Hollywood’s representation of “real death” is no different. With few exceptions—the movie Seven, for example—Hollywood tends to give the impression that only beautiful people die.

The actors that are cast to play “dead end roles” are usually just as appealing as the live actors. The only time an unattractive person is used is when the role requires that look. This practice is certainly understandable. Hollywood is no different than any other business that seeks to provide a product that appeals to the “consumer.”

Here’s a typical Hollywood image:

A body lies flat on a tray in the morgue with the head and shoulders exposed under a sheet folded as though they had just been tucked into bed. The face has an almost blissful look on it as it lies there. If it weren’t for the stab wound or gunshot wound, the body would look as though it had been prepared for viewing at the mortuary.

Here’s a more realistic image:

The only way a person is going to lie perfectly flat in a morgue is if the died perfectly flat. In most cases, a cadaver assumes nearly the same posture it had when it died—with the exception of any areas of rigor that were “broken” as the body was moved, examined, and strapped down for transport. More often than not, a person’s legs are bent at the knees and the hands are not straight down at the sides and the sheet covering the body is usually stained with whatever substance is present on the body.

In reality, the eyes and mouth are commonly open or at least “ajar” and the hair is a rat’s nest. “Bed head” has nothing on “dead head.” I’ve seen bodies on TV that were recovered from a wooded area, but that same body lying on a slab in the morgue doesn’t have a single leaf in its hair. I can only assume that the experts in the crime scene unit meticulously collected every leaf and twig from the hair—to the tune of a classic rock song—and that one of the leaves was traced back to a rare breed of ficus located in the lobby of the building where the killer’s dentist’s office was located.

Hollywood cadavers are in fairly decent physical shape and have the same level of hygiene as an actor in a body wash commercial. In reality, here are some of the more common findings underneath the sheet:

–a person with morbid obesity
–a person with neglected toenails (a.k.a. “Fritos” or “Free those” corn chips)
–a person with questionable personal hygiene
–a person with nonexistent personal hygiene
–a person unaware that the concept of personal hygiene even existed
–a person that assumed water was only meant to be taken internally

All of these elements are commonly found but rarely portrayed by directors. I’m sure there’s a valid reason for this disparity between fiction and reality. Playing devil’s advocate, I would argue that portraying death too accurately is probably taboo. If that’s the case, then it must be the last taboo. After all, we live in a world no longer afraid to broadcast reality television, presidential sexcapades, and images of Sipowitz’s bare ass.

“Day of the Dead”

November 2nd, 2005

Lost in the shuffle between Halloween and Christmas is a holiday that a growing segment of Americans hold in higher regard than Thanksgiving—the Day of the Dead. Of the “minor holidays”—those that don’t provide a day off from work but still validate the consumption of alcohol—the Day of the Dead intrigues me the most.

Beyond being able to butcher the pronunciation of “Dia de los Muertos,” I’m no expert on the subject by any means. My understanding of the Day of the Dead is that it’s essentially the pagan tradition of honoring dead ancestors practiced by the indigenous civilizations of Mexico combined with their Spanish conqueror’s celebration of All Saint’s Day (the day sandwiched between Halloween and All Souls Day). I like the idea of a holiday where those that have passed are honored by celebrating.

To me, that makes much more sense than taking flowers to a place where the recipient will never see them. After seeing a number of bodies that have been exhumed, I have a tendency to view cemeteries as nothing more than an underground biological reclamation site. To me, visiting a grave site makes as much sense as going to a library where books with blank pages have been archived.

For more information on the Day of the Dead, consult your local library. For best results, consult one where the books have words.

“Knowledge is Power?”

October 25th, 2005

I suppose everyone at one time or another has learned of something that in retrospect they realized they could have gone their whole life without knowing. For some, it may have been an embarrassing family secret they were privy to. For others, calculus—or in my case, basic algebra—may be the one thing they considered to be useless knowledge.

Over the years, this job has provided countless opportunities for me to wish I had remained ignorant of information that I had been presented with. Technically, these details were knowledge, but not in the sense that they were of any practical use. The most recent example of one of these opportunities occurred just last week.

I spent the better part of an afternoon reading through police reports, child welfare reports, and witness statements pertaining to the latest child death I had to investigate. Without going into specifics, the information contained therein chronicled a pattern of abuse that would have lead any reasonable person to conclude that death for this particular child was inevitable.

Granted, all deaths are inevitable, but most of us are afforded the opportunity to live long enough that we are able to comprehend the concept of mortality. This particular child barely lived long enough to comprehend the concept of sitting up, but spent the last several months of its life in a vegetative state that prohibited it from doing so.

After reading the particulars of the case, I couldn’t help but wonder, “What good did that do me?” Sure, I was able to determine the circumstances surrounding the critical injury that the child received. But beyond that, knowing detailed information about the day-to-day life of the child, the way it was treated, and the way the parents acted was of little use to me.

When I first started investigating deaths, having special knowledge of restricted details surrounding a case was one of the more enjoyable aspects of this job. Family and friends were eager to know what they hadn’t seen on the news or read in the papers. There have even been times when this knowledge has been downright amusing. To this day, there is nothing better than watching a reporter on the news give details that aren’t even close to what really happened, or to watch them try and create a story out of the scant details that the police spokesperson has provided.

Most everyone has watched (or avoided watching) news stories about some heinous act committed against a child on the evening news. These segments are usually limited to 45 seconds, so the reporters can only hit the high points and seem eager to use shocking keywords like “sodomy” and “child pornography” that are more likely to attract an audience. These generic terms are easily understood by the general public and elicit comments from viewers such as, “How could someone do that to a child?” or “I hope they rot in jail!”

Regardless of the impact such stories have on us initially the truth is that unless the story is particularly shocking, we forget it in no time at all. Even producers seem to move on when the next big story comes along. I’ve often wondered how much more of an impact these stories would have on viewers if the reporters were to pass on the specific details of the case. Maybe passing on such details to the general public would educate those among us that don’t realize grabbing a baby by its ankles and swinging it against the bedroom wall like a baseball bat is an inappropriate form of punishment. Those people are out there, and they are not all “drugged up” at the time of the incident. Some are just that stupid.

I find myself wondering, “What have I gained from this knowledge?” Did I develop a more loathsome opinion of those that resort to violence against defenseless children rather than use basic coping skills I used to assume were innate characteristics of being human? Not really. That bar has been set pretty low for quite some time.

I wonder if the child had any awareness that it was in a vegetative state. I wonder if the child was sad about being in such a state or simply relieved to have been out of an abusive environment no matter what the conditions. I wonder these things, and others, but not for very long. The sad fact is that, no matter how in-depth my knowledge of this case may be, it is only a matter of time before it too slips away into the mental abyss of details of the hundreds of cases that came before it.