Forensic pathology: methods and applications

Forensic Pathology as Scientific Evidence

Forensic Pathology is generally understood as having to do with the investigation of causation of injuries or death as a legal requirement. In the pursuit of this, pathologists usually investigate injury or death scenes and other relevant records to ascertain the cause of death.

Practically, forensic pathology incorporates the performance of post-mortem examination, which is an examination of body tissues and organs as well as investigations such as X-rays and toxicology testing. Forensic pathology makes it possible to interpret such results and reveal cause of end point of death as required by the law.

Interpreting Evidence

The results driven from forensic pathology are bound to be subjected to interpretations. The body can transform during the process of death or after, this transformation or changes are referred to as post-mortem changes or "artefacts," these changes can be misinterpreted as ailment or injuries that took place when the body was alive.[footnoteRef:1] It is also possible that the body's position at death in relation to gravity may cause lividity that looks like bruising during post-mortem. Nonetheless, the body's handling after death is also most likely to lead to misinterpretations. Ideally it is the pathologist responsibility and duty to properly interpret the autopsy results to ascertain occurrence of artefacts and their relevance to the cause of death. [1: Goudge, S.T. (2008). Inquiry into Pediatric Forensic Pathology in Ontario. Qubec: Ministry of the Attorney General.]

There have been cases where mistinterpretation of results have led to wrongful convictions, one such case is that of Sherry Sherret-Robinson.[footnoteRef:2] In this case the pathologist reported that the child had died as a result of asphyxia and asserted that the injuries were consistent. She was sentenced to one year in prison and lost custody of her elder son. After a review was conducted by a group of pathologist, new evidence pointed at a normal developing cranial suture as opposed to skull fracture and that haemorrhages that previously appeared on the child's neck were actually artefacts related to dissections from the post-mortem. The review further revealed that there was no swelling of the child's brain. The pathologists discovered that the cause of death was accidental asphyxial and not an intentional act. This forced the Crown to allow appeal, which led to removal of the conviction and acquittal entered. [2: R. v. Sherret-Robinson, [2009] O.J. No. 5312 . (n.d.).]

Criminal Justice System

In addition, National Research Council of the National Academics (2009)[footnoteRef:3] reported that forensic pathology in the United States is based on patchwork of coroners and medical examiners thereby resulting in a fragmented, system lacking standard performance. According to the report, the coroner system should be disbanded. It examines the most common systems in handling forensic investigation in the United States. These are State, county corona and county medical systems (Hickman, Hughes, Ropero-Miller, & Strom, 2007).[footnoteRef:4] Practically, the State statute provides for guidance on who handles forensic pathology. It is critical to note that forensic pathology is a medical decision therefore it should be the responsibility of a proffesional and not an investigator with some medical know how.[footnoteRef:5] [3: National Research Council of the National Academics. (2009). Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward. washington DC: The National Academies Press.] [4: Hickman, M., Hughes, K., Ropero-Miller, J., & Strom, K. (2007). Medical Examiners and Coroners Offices. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.] [5: National Research Council of the National Academics. (2009). Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward. washington DC: The National Academies Press.]

Relationship between Forensic Pathology and the Criminal Justice System