Patterns of injury

Abstract

The forensic pathologist resolves collections of injuries into recurring patterns which can be used to suggest the means by which such injuries occurred. There are no defined criteria which can be used to provide objective evidence for a diagnosis and the process is usually performed with a minimum of scene information. Fortunately in the vast majority of cases these patterns are intuitive and not contentious. A common example is the collection of abrasions, bruises and lacerations to one plane of the face when an individual suffers sudden unconscious collapse forwards onto a hard surface. A further frequent example are the multiple sharp force injuries to the hands, forearms or lower limbs in an individual who is defending themselves from an assault with a knife or other sharp object. The forensic pathologist must make an accurate description of the injuries and, if indicated, provide a fair and reasonable analysis of the causation of the injuries. In the ideal situation this analysis will be conservative, and reflect the opinion of the bulk of his/her colleagues. Issues can arise when one ‘over-interprets' the meaning of a collection of injuries, or the collection of injuries is made to fit a given scenario. In the majority of cases one is aware which case is going to be problematic, and by seeking a review of the case by a colleague one can avoid making a foolish error. Of course, in forensic practice there will be cases where significant issues will arise at a later time. Forensic pathologists must walk a fine line between not providing any useful interpretation for the police, courts, and other stakeholders, and being seduced into suggesting a detailed account of an incident from the presence of a number of injuries.