Why perform an autopsy when the cause of death is obvious?

[Flyback]

I seem to notice this happens often. Someone dies from an obvious cause and subsequently an autopsy is performed on the body.

In addition to cause of death, what do they hope to find? Circumstances beyond the obvious?

Case in point the climber whose body they recovered--they are going to perform an autopsy on it. Isn't it obvious what happened? Guys go out, get lost, lose out to nature.

I see it happen when people die by gun. Someone gets shot by rival gang and they perform an autopsy on the body (when there were a dozen witnesses who know what happened). What, beyond retrieving the bullets (to try and ID the gun that shot them) would they be needing an autopsy for?

What else do they want out of it? closure? absolute certainty for what happened? extra information?

I could understand if it was the latter, but it doesn't make sense when people witness it and know what went down (at least, in many cases--like a drive-by where there was no confrontation and physical attack before they were shot--there would be no other wounds save for the bullets which obviously killed them).

 

[theprodigalrebel]

Protocol

 

[pontifex]

hmm...i'll inject this guy with poison then i'll write a fake suicide note and get some pills and put them beside the body.


just because something looks obvious, doesn't mean thats what killed the person.

 

[MichaelD]

Originally posted by: pontifex
hmm...i'll inject this guy with poison then i'll write a fake suicide note and get some pills and put them beside the body.


just because something looks obvious, doesn't mean thats what killed the person.

Beat me to it. In this day and age of advanced science, where we can 100% positively ID someone from one hair, or a drop of spit, the obvious might not be so obvious.

Unless my body is blown to bits, I want an autopsy. Hell, at this point in my life, I'm worth a lot more dead (thanks, insurance) than alive.

 

[daveshel]

Depending upon the circumstances, an autopsy is sometimes required by law even when the cause appears obvious.

 

[Flyback]

Originally posted by: pontifex
hmm...i'll inject this guy with poison then i'll write a fake suicide note and get some pills and put them beside the body.


just because something looks obvious, doesn't mean thats what killed the person.

If a body was found on its own, then that makes sense completely.

If 50 shoppers witness a guy get gunned down by an assailant in a Mercedes SUV, who uttered "die foo" before shooting him, and nothing else happened (no altercation leading up to it)... why then?

 

[chambersc]

Nothing is ever obvious.

 

[randalee]

Originally posted by: chambersc
Nothing is ever obvious.

CptnObvious, where are you when we need you?!?

 

[chrisms]

Originally posted by: chambersc
Nothing is ever obvious.

It is obvious that "Nothing is ever obvious." appeared in a reply under your username at these forums.

 

[Chiropteran]

Originally posted by: Flyback

I see it happen when people die by gun. Someone gets shot by rival gang and they perform an autopsy on the body (when there were a dozen witnesses who know what happened). What, beyond retrieving the bullets (to try and ID the gun that shot them) would they be needing an autopsy for?

Physical evidence is more valuable than witness testimony. Also, the value of the information gained more than compensates for the cost of the autopsy.

Even finding no new information is valuable, as it confirms that things actually are as simple as they seem.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: Flyback

Originally posted by: pontifex
hmm...i'll inject this guy with poison then i'll write a fake suicide note and get some pills and put them beside the body.


just because something looks obvious, doesn't mean thats what killed the person.

If a body was found on its own, then that makes sense completely.

If 50 shoppers witness a guy get gunned down by an assailant in a Mercedes SUV, who uttered "die foo" before shooting him, and nothing else happened (no altercation leading up to it)... why then?

DIE FOO!

 

[Chiropteran]

Originally posted by: Flyback

Originally posted by: pontifex
hmm...i'll inject this guy with poison then i'll write a fake suicide note and get some pills and put them beside the body.


just because something looks obvious, doesn't mean thats what killed the person.

If a body was found on its own, then that makes sense completely.

If 50 shoppers witness a guy get gunned down by an assailant in a Mercedes SUV, who uttered "die foo" before shooting him, and nothing else happened (no altercation leading up to it)... why then?

Maybe the "killer" is a minority and the 50 shoppers are all racists. Physical evidence is more valuable than witness testimony.

 

[nakedfrog]

You should watch more CSI

 

[Jeeebus]

without an autopsy, the chick in Men in Black would have never discovered the tiny alien living inside the dead guy's face. Can't argue with that logic.

 

[chrisms]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
You should watch more CSI

Put some clothes back on, nakedfrog.

Someone had to say it.

 

[neovan]

Originally posted by: Flyback

Originally posted by: pontifex
hmm...i'll inject this guy with poison then i'll write a fake suicide note and get some pills and put them beside the body.


just because something looks obvious, doesn't mean thats what killed the person.

If a body was found on its own, then that makes sense completely.

If 50 shoppers witness a guy get gunned down by an assailant in a Mercedes SUV, who uttered "die foo" before shooting him, and nothing else happened (no altercation leading up to it)... why then?

Maybe he got gunned down because he snorted all their coke. It can also be used to find motive for why he was killed.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: chrisms

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
You should watch more CSI

Put some clothes back on, nakedfrog.

Someone had to say it.

Yeah, like that's gonna happen...

 

[scott916]

Because there's no black and white in obvious, you can't just draw a line and say that one's death was DEFINITELY caused by one thing.

What about elderly/very sick patients in the hospital? There have been many cases of people who were near death but could have been saved that were "helped along" by nurses with God complexes. If these people weren't autopsied because it was obvious they just succumbed and weren't murdered, no one would know.

 

[gsethi]

Originally posted by: MichaelD

Originally posted by: pontifex
hmm...i'll inject this guy with poison then i'll write a fake suicide note and get some pills and put them beside the body.


just because something looks obvious, doesn't mean thats what killed the person.

Beat me to it. In this day and age of advanced science, where we can 100% positively ID someone from one hair, or a drop of spit, the obvious might not be so obvious.

Unless my body is blown to bits, I want an autopsy. Hell, at this point in my life, I'm worth a lot more dead (thanks, insurance) than alive.

How old are you ? Any kids ? Married ? Are you adopting ?? If so, where can I apply ?

 

[Mutilator]

Originally posted by: Flyback

Originally posted by: pontifex
hmm...i'll inject this guy with poison then i'll write a fake suicide note and get some pills and put them beside the body.


just because something looks obvious, doesn't mean thats what killed the person.

If a body was found on its own, then that makes sense completely.

If 50 shoppers witness a guy get gunned down by an assailant in a Mercedes SUV, who uttered "die foo" before shooting him, and nothing else happened (no altercation leading up to it)... why then?

Maybe the bullets didn't kill him... the preexisting heart condition caused his heart to fail before the bullets hit and his kids would like to know about it before it's too late.

 

[DrPizza]

Reason?? "beyond a reasonable doubt."

Here, let me play the defense attorney:
"We have before you pictures of 30 shooting victims. Please note that the bullet wound is in an almost identical location as the victim which my client is accused of murdering. Here are pictures of all 30 shooting victims, taken one year later. You'll see that every one of these people survived. We also have medical evidence that the gunshot victim had high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and smoked a pack of cigarettes a day. We believe that the gunshot was NOT fatal, thus no murder occurred. What we feel is more likely is that the stress of hearing the ambulance's sirens hastened the onset of a heart attack which would have occurred regardless of the triggering event. We intend to demonstrate that our client is guilty of assault, however is innocent of the more serious crime: he did not murder the victim."

The autopsy is there to prove beyond a reasonable doubt what happened. Oh, and in the case that you're referring to, let's suppose that I wanted to off you for some reason. "Hey, let's go hiking!" While you're taking a nap, I suffocate you with a bag. Then, rather than quickly decend a mountain before a storm rolls in, I wait, get stranded, and pretend you succumbed to the weather conditions. Without autopsies being mandatory in such types of deaths, you create a lot of creative ways for people to commit murder and get away with it.

 

[chambersc]

Originally posted by: chrisms

Originally posted by: chambersc
Nothing is ever obvious.

It is obvious that "Nothing is ever obvious." appeared in a reply under your username at these forums.

Is it now? How do you know what you know? Are you sure of what you know?

 

[rh71]

Yeah, you need to watch more tv. People are devious.

 

[Flyback]

Wow, I must say I greatly underestimated how devious people could be. I need to get out more

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: chrisms

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
You should watch more CSI

Put some clothes back on, nakedfrog.

Someone had to say it.

You're not the boss of me.
If I could, I'd get even MORE naked just to spite you