Foreword by Professor dr. med. J. Chr. Giertsen, President of the International Association of Forensic Sciences

Giertsen, J. Chr.

doi:10.1016/s0015-7368(81)71380-x

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The perennial controversies concerning the precise diagnosis of drowning (whether in fresh or sea water) in routine forensic practice, particularly in relation to the usefulness of the various ancillary investigations available for the purpose, have been debated ad nauseam (Copeland, 1985(Copeland, , 1986(Copeland, and 1987Devos et al, 1985;Schmidt and Madea, 1995;Knight, 1996;Giertsen, 1977 and2000) and it is not intended that these should be reproduced or revisited here. What is, perhaps, significant about the present case, is that it illustrates the difficulties inherent in conducting an independent assessment of drowning, in the absence of any 'hard' pathological evidence, or for that matter, any reliable forensic evidence that might be used to corroborate or support the hypothesis that the deceased was a victim of accidental drowning, to the exclusion of all other possibilities.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Moreover, the mere presence of water in the stomach presumably suggested by abdominal compression, is not diagnostic of drowning (Knight, 1996;Giertsen, 1977 and2000) and may, at best, be taken as a tenuous indication that the deceased might have been alive at the time of immersion (Giertsen, 1977 and2000). Furthermore, it is entirely possible that the victim could have ingested some fluid just before he took his bath.…”

Section: Opinionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Did He Drown or was He Murdered?

Lau

2002

Med Sci Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An unemployed, 60-year-old Singaporean gentleman died during a brief overseas trip to another South-East Asian country. He had, presumably, drowned in the bathtub of his hotel room, which he shared with his then 44-year-old companion, who was supposedly his nephew. The relevant public health and medico-legal authorities of the host country conducted an external examination of the body at the scene, whereupon they agreed with the police that his death was probably due to accidental drowning following an episode of syncope. It would appear that this verdict was based almost entirely on circumstantial and hearsay evidence. No autopsy was performed. In its place, considerable reliance was placed on the observation that abdominal compression resulted in the outflow of a small amount of water from the mouth, as being proof of drowning. A few days later, the body was cremated in the host country and the remains (ashes) were subsequently repatriated to Singapore. It later transpired that, shortly before they embarked on the ill-fated trip, the deceased's 'nephew' had purchased, on the former's behalf, travel insurance policies (covering accidental injury and death) amounting to a total of S$800,000 from five different insurance companies, as well as a separate life policy for a further S$100,000, most of which had been issued within the fortnight prior to their departure. Interestingly, the beneficiary (later the plaintiff in the ensuing civil trial some three years later) of all of these policies, was the ex-wife of the deceased's 'nephew', with whom he had, in fact, continued to live although they were officially divorced several years ago. Whilst the claim against the life policy had been settled, the first five insurers declined to issue payment on grounds of suspicion that the deceased had been the victim of a homicide, planned or executed by the 'nephew', wherein the beneficiary was a conspirator of sorts. The author was approached by defence counsel (representing the various insurers), for assistance in this matter. It was felt that a proper forensic review was seriously hampered by the lack of a full autopsy which would have been indispensable in ascertaining the actual cause of death and in eliminating other possibilities, apart from drowning, such as death from natural causes, other forms of injury, poisoning, or homicide. It was also emphasized that the mere presence of ingested water is not diagnostic of drowning. Eventually, after a protracted but unsuccessful attempt at mediation (in the course of which, the plaintiff rejected the offer of a reduced, although apparently sizable quantum), the matter came before the High Court, which found in favour of the defendants. It appeared that the judge was more than convinced that the deceased was indeed the victim of a homicide of which the plaintiff was a conspirator and her ex-husband, the perpetrator, as even a cursory perusal of the written judgement would indicate. Accordingly, the court ruled that the plaintiff (in her capacity as both the beneficiary of the i...

show abstract