Maverick Story's - 2 days ago

“The Silent Causes: Why Some Autopsies Can’t Reveal the Truth”

0 16 min read

Need for Autopsy in every death –

[The article is drawn from a true incidence, and is designed to provide information and motivation to our readers. The publisher is not engaged to render any form of psychological, legal or any kind of professional advice. The content of the article is the sole expression and opinion of the author, and not necessarily that of the publisher. No warranties or guarantees are implied by the publisher’s choice to include any of the content in this article. Neither the publisher nor the author shall be liable for any physical, psychological, emotional, financial, commercial damages. Our views and rights are the same: You are responsible for your own choices, actions & results.]

[Readers are adviced to sought medical guidance]

In today’s article we will discuss on the remaining four key errors that may occur in forensic autopsy practice, with irreversible judicial consequences.

(D) Flawed Reporting and Documentation at any Stage of Autopsy: –

The exercises documented in the final autopsy report should constitute suitable evidence, which would be a testament to the confirmity. Recent studies conducted demonstrates many transcription errors and implied negligence in autopsy reports, carrying a high risk of compromising judicial investigations. Therefore, FE (Forensic Expert) must precisely describe what has been done in the final report, step by step, without including any non-factual executions.

It is essential to detail which liquids have been withdrawn and where they have been stored, which (if any) organs have been removed and fixed in formaldehyde, and whether or not subsequent investigations are to be conducted on them. Any new documentation that is acquired must be recorded, and whenever samples are taken for research purposes, this must be noted. Similarly, retention of tissue and organ are to be elaborated as per jurisprudence.

At the end of the autopsy, the forensic expert is responsible for determining the cause of death and giving other relevant medico-legal opinions based on the autopsy findings, results of instrumental or laboratory testing, and circumstantial information relating to the death. Therefore, each singular phase of the forensic autopsy must be mentioned and described in detail. In the performance of the post-mortem examination, both shortcomings and unnecessary activity may compromise the validity of the final report.

(E) Failure to Notify the Party Forensic Consultant: –

The performance of an autopsy is an act that is intended to provide evidence in a court of law, and the expert findings obtained will be regarded as such. The legislator must therefore prepare a form of guarantee, with the participation of the forensic consultants (FCs). These professional figures have different roles, rights, and obligations in our country’s legal systems. They are court appointed commission u/o 26 Rule 9 of Civil Procedure Code as “Court Commissioner”, and also eligible to provide expert opinions under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – acc. to Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 45.

Forensic consultants thus have the right to attend all stages of the technical assessment, up to its conclusion. They can work in defence of the injured party or the suspect(s) under investigation; they also have the task of supporting the family or the client by providing a medical opinion along with information regarding the autopsy activity.

In criminal (as well as civil) cases (13), the party FC is expected to propose technical assessments, which result in an opinion rendered orally or in written records. In this perspective, the consultant qualifies as a subject who assists the party with their technical and scientific skills, but also as a possible source of evidence through the use of their statements at the hearing, thus approaching the figure of the “expert witness” in common law systems.

Intervening in this context does not mean hindering the work of the FE. The FC can make observations or suggestions or express reservations, and these must be registered. The expert of the Public Prosecutor’s Office will then have to take the FC’s contributions into account in the final report, giving the reasons why they have been accepted or rejected. In the latter case, a sustainable technical explanation is required. The FC must therefore verify that important details are examined by the court’s expert and shared, or at least recorded, in the report that will be submitted to the magistrate.

In this context, it is the task of the FE to report every phase of his or her activity to the FC during the autopsy activity, and in subsequent examinations on organs, in laboratory analysis, in the reading of histological slides, and in carrying out and visualizing instrumental investigations made on the corpse. Failure to fulfill this kind of notification will jeopardize the entire investigation, even more so if the examinations are classified as “unrepeatable” by a court of law.

(F) Conducting Histological or Toxicological Analyses by Pseudo Laboratories for Forensic Purposes: –

Pseudoscience suddenly started gaining momentum from 2014; scientific evidence, although considered very important and given considerable weightage in court, is rarely presented. Then again, there are some kinds of evidences that are presented more than others – fingerprints, medico-legal reports, toxicology reports, DNA, ballistics etc. The impediments to better use of forensic evidence in courts has been attributed to limitations of both science and law. Laboratory analysis is often done poorly, resulting in reports that cannot be used as part of the trial. Experts who appear as witnesses are known to overstate the significance and certainty of their results. The scientists in India do not keep update with developments in the forensic area, such as the doubts raised against the individuality of bitemarks. Lawyers and judges, on the other, do not have an acute understanding of scientific analysis, and are often apprehensive or unaware of challenging questionable analyses. There are also no clear guidelines about how to go about submitting scientific evidence or expert testimony beyond a few Sections in the Indian Evidence Act and such.

In our country, there is already accreditation requirements for work carried out in histological laboratories, which also cover the use of immunohistochemical methods. In addition to the issue of quality in specimens for microscopic analysis, the question of reliability of histopathological diagnoses in forensic routine needs to be considered, in view of the strict standards of evidence, particularly in criminal proceedings. A forensic pathology laboratory, therefore, should have specific standard operating procedures.

Also, drug testing laboratories must guarantee highly precise chemical-toxicological analysis, so for forensic purposes they need accreditation standards and procedures, which enable laboratories to demonstrate that they operate competently and generate valid and irrefutable results which can be submitted to a court, in the context of forensic toxicology. Failure to comply could make histopathological and/or toxicological results potentially inadmissible for judicial purposes, with disastrous repercussions in terms of establishing guilt or exoneration of a criminal defendant.

(G) Lacuna in the Observance of the Custodial Chain: –

Evidence requires conscientious handling to avert tampering. The continuity of possession of evidence or custody of evidence and its movement and location from the point of discovery and recovery (at the scene of a crime or from a person) to its transport to the laboratory for examination and until the time it is allowed and admitted in the court, is known as the chain of custody or chain of evidence.

The documentation of the chain of custody serves 3 primary purposes:

to ask relevant questions regarding the evidence to the analytical laboratory,
to maintain a record of the chain of custody, and
to document that the sample/evidence was handled only by approved personnel and was not accessible for tampering before analysis.

A separate chain of custody form must accompany different evidence bags. The chain of custody form shall at least include the following information:

Unique identifier,
Name and signature of the sample collector,
Official address and contact number,
Name of the recipient,
Laboratory’s address,
Details of each sample, including:
Unique identifier and matrix,
Date and time of collection,
Type of analysis required,
Signatures of everyone involved in the chain of possession with date and time,
Date and method of delivery,
Authorisation for the analysis of the sample,
Any other information about the sample.

Maintaining the chain of custody should be considered a professional and ethical responsibility by those in charge of the evidence. For the FE, the chain of custody is of particular interest in the following procedures:

– removal of organs taken for subsequent investigation or simply stored and kept at the disposal of the judicial authority for any diagnostic-forensic investigations;

– tissue sampling for histological, microbiological, or molecular biological examinations;

– the preparation of paraffin blocks and stained histological slides;

– sample collections of biological liquids or matrices, for toxicological examinations or genetic testing;

– clothing that is worn by an individual at the time of the crime;

– projectiles recovered from a dead body or shooting scene.

The importance of the chain of custody as a post-autopsy procedure is often underestimated by the medical sector. However, the practitioner should remember that it is the most critical procedure that ultimately decides the admissibility of evidence in any trial.

To be continued…………………