If a body was found with an apparent bullet hole, for example, to the head, is there any need for an autopsy?
by 
KiloWattKid
ANSWERS: 23
-
Yes, because the shot could have been post-mortem (after they died) and it may be an attempt to cover something else up.
-
Yes, to find out what really killed the person, and when. For example, someone could have been poisoned a day ago, however the body was planted and shot in the head a day later to wait till rigor mortis wore off and to throw time of death off.
-
Apparent bullet holes could be self-inflicted, murder, or accidental. An autopsy may be performed to determine which. ***Also see Teri00's answer.***
-
As odd as it sounds they have to determine what the actual cause of death was...even with a gaping bullet wound to the head. Defense cases often rely on hair-splitting of the cause of death so they have to establish it with a degree of certainty.
-
Absolutely. If the gunshot wound occurred post mortem, than the person who fired the gun would not be liable for the death of the victim. Sorta the opposite of the condundrum about the man who tries to commit suicide by throwing himself off the building, but a stray bullet from a window he falls past kills him on the way down....
-
Sure....gotta find out if it was self-inflicted or if there's a murder suspect.
-
Actually, the biggest reason we do it is to recover the projectile. If it's a questionable death (stray bullet in a drive by, homicide, etc) we might send it to the lab to be put into the NIBIN database and see if it matches any other bullets from other crimes. Also during the autopsy, we would look at the path of the bullet (the trajectory) and how that matches up with other evidence on scene. Using trajectory reconstruction, we might be able to determine where the shooter was standing and the muzzle height of the weapon. The angles determined at the autopsy could be critical to that reconstruction. Good question! :)
-
Sure. Maybe the guy was shot after he dropped dead of a heart attack.
-
Yes, in the US at least that would result in an in-depth investigation that would include an autopsy among other things. This is because the police and those affected would want to know things, for instance, such as: -Did they die because they were shot in the head or did they die in another way and then someone shot them, in which case that would be a whole other investigation -Retreival of evidence (bullet) -Often it is the policy of local authorities to perform autopsy on all unnatural deaths, and unless this person died of a heart attack and then was shot in the head, the death would appear to a reasonable person prima facie to be unnatural... that is just why an autopsy would be performed in the scenario you present
-
Yes. The body could have been poisoned, before the shot to the brain. And, there are other reasons. Most states require an autopsy for homocides and deaths that are suspicious.
-
You could have killed yourself because you did not want to die from the poison...
-
most bodies that are suspected of foul play, or any kind of murder get autposied.
-
Another reason that hasn't been exactly touched on is that the autopsy report becomes evidence in court. If there's any way at all to have the body in front of the coroner/medical examiner to be fully examined, that report is then admissible. If it's a delayed homicide (say the guy dies after being paralyzed by a stray bullet 10 years after the fact), there's not necessarily a need for the body, but the coroner/medical examiner will still need to see "proof" through police reports and/or medical records in order to sign the death certificate to reflect that injury.
-
In my state all deaths that are not of natural causes or are of a suspicous nature require an autopsy by law.
-
The bullet hole, if that it what it really is the cause of death or did this {bullet?} happen after death? Yes
-
Who did you kill?...
-
yes. Sometimes the obvious injury is not the cause of death. in a murder case, this could make a difference in what charges our brought and who is charged with what. For instance, the person could have lived through the shooting and died from a beating given prior to the shooting by another suspect. A prosecutor needs a valid and conclusive autopsy to make sure there are no surprise loose ends that could mess up their case.
-
Any and every case where the cause of death is unnatural or where the cause of death is not know, an autopsy is mandatory. How would one know if the person with the bullet hole was not dead before he was shot? What if he was poisoned before he died? How long has he been dead for? Was the gun found the same as the one used to fire the shot which killed him? So to answer these and many other questions related to the case, an autopsy is required. Source: http://freeforensictips.blogspot.com/2008/12/preservation-of-viscera-for-analytical.html
-
Definately. The gunshot wound2 the head probably wasn't the way that person died. There can be many options. Many ppl survive gunshot wounds to the head, so in order to be precise and correct, an autopsy should be performed. For accuracy, and closure for the family as well.
-
Yes it may have been something else that killed him say posion and the bullet wound is merely a distraction.
-
yes they would have to remove the bullet anyway to identify what type of gun it was from / range etc.... i believe its standard to do an autopsy with a muder victim aswell
-
Quincy and Sam say yes...
-
Yes, Because other evidence can be use with the "Autopsy" .... For example, maybe the person could have been "Drugged" then shot in the head...Or, poisioned ...So an autopsy is very helpful in all cases....
iwnit RELATED QUESTIONS
Copyright 2023, Wired Ivy, LLC