Tweet
The JFJ had called our autopsies a joke from long time!
Jamaican autopsies a dead end
published: Wednesday | June 6, 2007
This March 20 photo shows the body of Pakistan cricket coach Bob Woolmer lying in a Kingston morgue. Rights lobby Jamaicans For Justice has questioned the methodology of the Woolmer post-mortem and that of homicide autopsies in Jamaica generally. - REUTERS
Jamaicans For Justice, Contributors
Any sudden or unexpected death will usually be the subject of a post-mortem, otherwise called an autopsy. This examination may be carried out by a pathologist; or, if foul play is suspected, by a forensic pathologist.
Police involvement is par for the course. It is very important for the forensic pathologist to try to find out whether that person had taken an overdose, or had been poisoned by someone else; if he had committed suicide by shooting himself or had been shot by someone else; or if he had hanged himself or been strangled by another person, or if, in fact, death was accidental or due to natural causes.
It is vitally important to differentiate between these causes of death so that a determination can be made as to whether someone else is responsible for the death, in which case the manner of death would be homicide. In Jamaica, the Ministry of National Security employs forensic pathologists who generally perform autopsies in suspected homicides. This was what occurred in the case of the death of the Pakistan cricket coach, Bob Woolmer.
Performing an autopsy is no simple matter. Great care must be taken to ensure that nothing is missed and that vital evidence is not lost in order to come to a just conclusion. The performance of a competently done autopsy is, therefore, essential to the just outcome of cases. In many cases, however, such a determination is not made because often the autopsy does not produce the evidence that is necessary to make such a determination possible. This means that justice cannot be done, or even be seen to be done.
Unanswered questions
It is clear that the autopsy done on Woolmer has left much to be desired, particularly as it relates to the cause and manner of death. What did Woolmer die of? We do not know. What would a visit to the scene of his death have revealed to a skilled forensic pathologist? Did they visit the hotel? Some toxicology results are still outstanding. What will those show? Was the hyoid bone in his throat fractured, which would point to the possibility of strangulation? Or did he die of natural causes as is being claimed by the British police?
Perhaps we will never know the truth. But we are bound to ask, did the autopsy performed on Woolmer meet international standards? We are bound to ask, because Jamaicans For Justice has for a number of years reported on problems with the forensic pathology department of the Ministry of National Security.
Reproduced below are excerpts of an article first published in 2001 in The Gleaner which remains chillingly relevant even to 2007 and the Woolmer case.
There are very strict and clear protocols on how to perform an autopsy, especially in cases that might involve foul play. The paths of bullets should be probed, and bullets removed, in an effort to establish where the bullet entered and where it exited. If a bullet is retrieved it may be possible to establish which gun the bullet came from and thus assist in identifying the killer. The direction in which the bullet was travelling can be established by probing the path from the entry to the exit wound. This can also establish whether the shots were fired into the back or front of the body, and whether the victim was standing or lying down. All this information can be used to corroborate, or dispute, evidence given by witnesses and the police.
For years now we have heard that many people, usually young men, have been shot in what police allege is a shoot-out, while members of the community, witnesses and bystanders allege something quite different. A satisfactorily completed autopsy can often establish the truth of the conflicting claims made by police and citizens. It is, therefore, of the utmost importance that autopsies done on victims of any police shooting be conducted with care and adhere to international standards.
Far from an autopsy
In 2000, a distinguished Scottish forensic pathologist, Dr. Derrick Pounder, from Dundee University, reviewed the autopsy reports on several police shootings in Jamaica. His report, issued at the end of 2000, may be regarded as a serious indictment of the way autopsies are performed in Jamaica.
He stated, "Autopsies on Janice Allen, Patrick Genius, Sean Robinson and Delroy Lewis are not autopsies in a way that would normally be understood." He added, "... The quality of reports (are) deficient ... and do not meet (normal) best practices (and) United Nations standards ... (and show) serious deficiency in being able to classify what was or was not murder."
This indictment by a highly qualified and impartial observer must send shivers down the spine of citizens and, indeed, government authorities. Those responsible can no longer turn a blind eye and civil society must understand the implications of these deficiencies.
Components of a real autopsy
What constitutes a complete and thorough autopsy, particularly one in which there is suspicion of foul play? The entire body should be carefully examined and X-rayed to determine (a) the presence of gunshot wounds; (b) bullet entry and exit wounds; and (c) if bullets are still in the body. This is not being done routinely. As soon as the police retrieve the bodies, the hands should be wrapped to preserve evidence of gunpowder that would be present if the victim had been in a shoot-out. The absence of gunpowder on the hands of the victim is strong evidence that he did not fire a gun and that a shoot-out had NOT taken place.
Other activities not routinely carried out are opening of the cranium and removal and weighing of the brain. Examination of all the organs may reveal vital evidence. Photographs of the bodies from all angles and showing all wounds are essential as they could prove to be of vital importance in a trial. This is seldom, if ever, done. A thorough autopsy could take several hours, while in Jamaica, they are more often than not completed in 20-30 minutes.
The presence of an impartial observer should be a RIGHT of the family if they so desire, and the findings should not be impugned because he is an observer. Where families request a second autopsy done by a non-government official, this too should be permitted. At present, in Jamaica, autopsies DO NOT meet acceptable, let alone, international standards. It is vital that this situation be speedily rectified.
published: Wednesday | June 6, 2007
This March 20 photo shows the body of Pakistan cricket coach Bob Woolmer lying in a Kingston morgue. Rights lobby Jamaicans For Justice has questioned the methodology of the Woolmer post-mortem and that of homicide autopsies in Jamaica generally. - REUTERS
Jamaicans For Justice, Contributors
Any sudden or unexpected death will usually be the subject of a post-mortem, otherwise called an autopsy. This examination may be carried out by a pathologist; or, if foul play is suspected, by a forensic pathologist.
Police involvement is par for the course. It is very important for the forensic pathologist to try to find out whether that person had taken an overdose, or had been poisoned by someone else; if he had committed suicide by shooting himself or had been shot by someone else; or if he had hanged himself or been strangled by another person, or if, in fact, death was accidental or due to natural causes.
It is vitally important to differentiate between these causes of death so that a determination can be made as to whether someone else is responsible for the death, in which case the manner of death would be homicide. In Jamaica, the Ministry of National Security employs forensic pathologists who generally perform autopsies in suspected homicides. This was what occurred in the case of the death of the Pakistan cricket coach, Bob Woolmer.
Performing an autopsy is no simple matter. Great care must be taken to ensure that nothing is missed and that vital evidence is not lost in order to come to a just conclusion. The performance of a competently done autopsy is, therefore, essential to the just outcome of cases. In many cases, however, such a determination is not made because often the autopsy does not produce the evidence that is necessary to make such a determination possible. This means that justice cannot be done, or even be seen to be done.
Unanswered questions
It is clear that the autopsy done on Woolmer has left much to be desired, particularly as it relates to the cause and manner of death. What did Woolmer die of? We do not know. What would a visit to the scene of his death have revealed to a skilled forensic pathologist? Did they visit the hotel? Some toxicology results are still outstanding. What will those show? Was the hyoid bone in his throat fractured, which would point to the possibility of strangulation? Or did he die of natural causes as is being claimed by the British police?
Perhaps we will never know the truth. But we are bound to ask, did the autopsy performed on Woolmer meet international standards? We are bound to ask, because Jamaicans For Justice has for a number of years reported on problems with the forensic pathology department of the Ministry of National Security.
Reproduced below are excerpts of an article first published in 2001 in The Gleaner which remains chillingly relevant even to 2007 and the Woolmer case.
There are very strict and clear protocols on how to perform an autopsy, especially in cases that might involve foul play. The paths of bullets should be probed, and bullets removed, in an effort to establish where the bullet entered and where it exited. If a bullet is retrieved it may be possible to establish which gun the bullet came from and thus assist in identifying the killer. The direction in which the bullet was travelling can be established by probing the path from the entry to the exit wound. This can also establish whether the shots were fired into the back or front of the body, and whether the victim was standing or lying down. All this information can be used to corroborate, or dispute, evidence given by witnesses and the police.
For years now we have heard that many people, usually young men, have been shot in what police allege is a shoot-out, while members of the community, witnesses and bystanders allege something quite different. A satisfactorily completed autopsy can often establish the truth of the conflicting claims made by police and citizens. It is, therefore, of the utmost importance that autopsies done on victims of any police shooting be conducted with care and adhere to international standards.
Far from an autopsy
In 2000, a distinguished Scottish forensic pathologist, Dr. Derrick Pounder, from Dundee University, reviewed the autopsy reports on several police shootings in Jamaica. His report, issued at the end of 2000, may be regarded as a serious indictment of the way autopsies are performed in Jamaica.
He stated, "Autopsies on Janice Allen, Patrick Genius, Sean Robinson and Delroy Lewis are not autopsies in a way that would normally be understood." He added, "... The quality of reports (are) deficient ... and do not meet (normal) best practices (and) United Nations standards ... (and show) serious deficiency in being able to classify what was or was not murder."
This indictment by a highly qualified and impartial observer must send shivers down the spine of citizens and, indeed, government authorities. Those responsible can no longer turn a blind eye and civil society must understand the implications of these deficiencies.
Components of a real autopsy
What constitutes a complete and thorough autopsy, particularly one in which there is suspicion of foul play? The entire body should be carefully examined and X-rayed to determine (a) the presence of gunshot wounds; (b) bullet entry and exit wounds; and (c) if bullets are still in the body. This is not being done routinely. As soon as the police retrieve the bodies, the hands should be wrapped to preserve evidence of gunpowder that would be present if the victim had been in a shoot-out. The absence of gunpowder on the hands of the victim is strong evidence that he did not fire a gun and that a shoot-out had NOT taken place.
Other activities not routinely carried out are opening of the cranium and removal and weighing of the brain. Examination of all the organs may reveal vital evidence. Photographs of the bodies from all angles and showing all wounds are essential as they could prove to be of vital importance in a trial. This is seldom, if ever, done. A thorough autopsy could take several hours, while in Jamaica, they are more often than not completed in 20-30 minutes.
The presence of an impartial observer should be a RIGHT of the family if they so desire, and the findings should not be impugned because he is an observer. Where families request a second autopsy done by a non-government official, this too should be permitted. At present, in Jamaica, autopsies DO NOT meet acceptable, let alone, international standards. It is vital that this situation be speedily rectified.
Comment