About this blog

The purpose of this blog is for the public to understand well about forensic science as well as explain the forensic related issues into layman term. Feel free to email your doubt & suggestion to : theforensicscience93@gmail.com

Wednesday, May 13, 2015

The silent scream when someone is drowning

How much do you know about drowning ?
There some myths about drowning.

For instance, people do not scream when they are drowning because of the physiology of human body when water has entered the mouth and causes the epiglottis to close over the airway. The victim will continue struggle but they can't make any noise as he/she cannot breath.


I will skip the five stages of drowning at here and focus more on the investigation parts. If the pathologist has been asked to perform an autopsy on a body that was found in water but does not have any physical injuries or problems with heart disease, then it mostly likely conclusion as misadventure.

The basic concept of investigating a drowning case would be checking on the lungs whether it filled with water, but there may well be occasions when it proves difficult to establish whether or not the deceased was alive when they entered the water; this is because when the individual is submerged long enough in the water, the lungs will fill up anyway. The other aspect of looking into death occur before or after drowning could be checking on the diatoms in the body systems known as forensic limnology.

Forensic limnology is another sub-field of forensic botany, which examines the presence of diatoms in crime scene samples and victims. Different methods are used to collect this data but all identify the ratios of different diatom colonies present in samples and match those sample with locations at the crime scene.

Layman : Different water area exits different species of diatoms. Diatoms is a kind of "living thing" known as a single-celled species of algae with " shells " made of silica. Therefore, if a person die while he/she still alive, courtesy to the cardiovascular system, the heart pumps blood to all over the body, when the water comes into the body, diatoms may be available in lungs, liver, as well as kidney. Thus it is a more accurate way to determine if someone has drown before or after death. And that is forensic limnology. Diatoms are well preserved in decompose body !

For the decomposed corpses and skeletonise body found in water, the diagnosis of drowning is rather difficult because those "drowning signs" were destroyed. Here the diatom test stand as the only direct screening test for drowning. Malaysia pioneer study about diatom was started by Hospital Kuantan.

Occasionally a condition called " dry drowning " may present itself; this is where the deceased's larynx has gone into spasm as water has entered the throat, thus the passage to the lungs is blocked and any water that is already in there cannot get out and more water cannot get in.

Another phenomena known as " secondary drowning ". Layman : drown again after the first time exposure. A tiny amount of water enters the lungs causing irritation and the fluid produced in the lungs as a result can accumulate to cause drowning up to 72 hours after the exposure. Therefore, do not be careless after saving someone from the water. Be more specific, it is due to the electrolyte disturbance metabolic acidosis occur.


Antemortem = subject to water before death 
Postmortem = subject to water after death 








Sunday, May 10, 2015

The elements for claiming self-defense















on Feb 24 ( Malaysia ), a father and his son were charged for murdering a robber in order to protect their family members under Penal Code 302 ( Punishment of Murder ). Once they were sentenced, they will face death penalty.

This case was gone viral on the internet especially on Facebook. A lot of the people were reacted vigorously on behalf of the father and son. Most of the comments: they were self-defence for the family, why the murder charged ? Malaysia legal system is stupid! Malaysia court has no justice ! and the list goes on.

There are certain elements needed to be fulfilled in order for someone to claim self-defence and claiming self defence should be very particular when it comes to fulfilling the elements otherwise the other outcome such as facing secondary degree murder charged will happen.

Self defence applied only when three circumstances come together
1) necessity is great
2) it exists right now
3) for prevention only

Pre-emptive strike ( come too soon ) or Retaliation ( come too late ) are not allowed !

The elements of self-defense

Unprovoked attack 

The defender did not start the attack, if yes self-defence is not available to an initial aggressor.
But there is an exception: withdrawal of treat exception

For example : A son is threaten to shoot his father with a gun. The father went to a neighbour's house, borrowed the neighbour's gun and came back. The son told him to "stop". When the father shot, the son turned and ran, the father pursued him. The son then turned and shot his father, killing him.

The son had completely withdraw his treat by saying "stop" to his father. When the father shot, the son did run. In this withdrawal of treat situation, the father still pursue him and the son had the right for claiming self defence.

Necessity

The defenders could only allow to use deadly force when it is extremely necessary to repel an imminent deadly attack or serious bodily injury. The imminent deadly attack should happening at this moment, could not be yesterday and of course in the future. The necessity of defence not only to save your life but other as well.

The necessity allows you to respond even if you have reasonable belief that someone is going to hurt you. An action of grabbing a fist/ the action that is highly positive to hurt you.


Proportionality

Defender can use deadly force only if the use of non deadly force is not enough for the situation otherwise the proportionality does not exist. Excessive force is not allowed such as the number of people, and the type of weapon used. Threats alone can never justify deadly force but you need reasonable belief there was a threat.

Reasonable belief

The defender should reasonably believe that is necessary to use deadly force to repel the imminent attack. There are some statutes allow one to kill in defence for crime such as rape, sodomy, kidnapping as well as armed robbery. The defender must retreat unless the situation would unreasonably expose the person to death or serious bodily harm. You have to run whenever possible. Minority retreat rule says you have to retreat if you reasonably believe that you are in danger of death. Otherwise, it doesn't make sense of saying you have reasonable belief the person is going to harm you but you choose not to run and fight him.


Stand your ground rule

If you are not the initial aggressor, you do not have to retreat. If he did not start the fight, he can stand his ground and kill to defend himself.

For example: A burglar broke into your house and try to attack you when you discover his presence. House is suppose to be the safest place for you, thus you can fight the burglar with deadly forces. This is known as castle' exception.

Coming back to the case which the father and son were charged by murder. The robber was found dead when his hands and legs were tighten up.

Necessity for self-defence -> yes
Proportionality for self-defence -> no, in fact, is overkilled
Unprovoked attack -> yes, the robber attack them and they did not initiate the fight
Retreat doctrine -> no, both of them did not try to try yet they fight back immediately

The details of the case might be unknown but what I want to say is, claiming self-defense is not easy in fact it is extremely hard to claim self-defence successfully. There must be a reason why the court charge them with Penal Code 302.

Therefore, I hope this post could help for reducing the viral comments as well as the extreme attitude toward the Malaysia Court System before knowing the fact as a whole. The information that I wrote here was not very details but the basic understanding for you to know what are the requirements for claiming self-defence.

Claiming self-defence should be something sincere to protect you when you have really no choice but to fight back with deadly force. Please do not use this as an excuse for escaping the guilt of killing someone when you are not necessary to do so.












Small Introduction:

My name is Avant, I am a final year forensic science student. I am inspired to write this blog because of Mr Oon Yeoh and I am very happy to share my learning. I am newbie of writing forensic related stuffs, if there is any other useful suggestion I am more than happy to know.

Thank you for reading