Mr. Cyril W. Shawcross, H.M. Coroner for Herefordshire, commenting on the paper read by Mr. George Metcalfe, M.B.E., Asst Chief Constable of the West Riding, stated that the position regarding post-mortem examinations in England and Wales is that no dead person can be buried without a Registered Medical Practitioner or a Coroner certifying the cause of death. If the doctor cannot certify or has not attended the deceased within 14 days of death then the death must be notified to the Coroner. The Coroner must then investigate and unless the doctor can satisfy him as to the cause of death he must order a postmortem examination. Dr. R. G. Hall stated that researches were started in France as long ago as 1860 on the production of toxic compounds during the decomposition of the human body. The last publication on this subject in this country is believed to be dated 1909. He invited comment from Dr. A. S. Curry, Principal Scientific Officer, Home Office Forensic Science Laboratory, North East Area, who had earlier read a paper on Homicidal Poisoning. Dr. Curry in his reply stated that he challenged the implication that in this country toxicologists have done no work on this problem. Dr. Curry said, We are constantly meeting these compounds in bodies found in the sea or in rivers and from exhumations, etc. I think the emphasis in the analysis has moved towards techniques designed to separate these artefacts from the 500 odd known alkaloids. This is in itself a sufficient problem at the present time. Incidentally, Dr. Helene Nathane and I have a paper in press at the moment concerning the presence of a pteridine in the urine of a boy who died from liver failure. This compound, although it wasn't produced by putrefaction, behaved as an 'alkaloid' and is an illustration that I again reject the implication in the question. On the other artefacts, I think one must remember alcohols, aldehydes and sulphides, and the work of Dr. Gormsen in Copenhagen on alcohol production, post mortem, is a striking example of a most important recent discovery on this subject. Dr. J. A. Clarke referring to the paper by Dr. D. E. Price, Home Office Pathologist, East Midland and North Eastern Areas, on Post-Mortem technique in Homicide Cases, asked for a clear recommendation on the procedure for ascertaining that death had taken place. How much should a recently dead body be moved by the practitioner or police surgeon for these purposes ? Dr. High, of Bradford, posed the same question in reply to a suggestion that senior clinicians trained in Forensic Medicine should be called in to see all accident cases. He considered that this would waste valuable time when the first consideration must be the life of the patient. Dr. Gorsky indicated that the last questioner had failed to appreciate his point. The efforts to save life need not interfere with the taking of accurate notes by those trained to appreciate the value of noting facts of seeming insignificance which may later tend to throw great light on a death which may turn out to be homicide. I t is the clue missed which may prevent a homicide being solved. Various questions were put by members of the audience to Dr. Keith Mant in relation to his paper on the Identification of Skeletal Remains, which the writer of this report found very fascinating. In a discussion on how long dead from skeletal remains Dr. Gorsky outlined briefly the examination of the bones of the Princes in the Tower and how the late Professor Wright was able to give the ages, height and other details which proved that the Princes were
Search from 250 M+ research papersSearch from 250 M+ research papers
Open Access
Apr 12, 2011
A S Curry 
