</><>><>><>><>><>><>><><>></><><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><> ><>>> > > ><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>>> >> ><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><><>>, ><>>>, ><>><>>> ><>><>></><><>></><><>><>><>><>><>><>><>></><><>>:-</><><><><><><><>></></></></></></><><>><> >> ></><><>"... ></><><>>>/>> ><>><>><>><>></><><>“> <>></><><>><> ><>>< href id="footnote-ref-0">[1]. The forensic pathologist is also called a student of human suffering. His report is relied upon to help understand what led the suffering resulting in death.
In the evidence by PW3, the court was told that the only basis to erase correlative between the indubitable extensive lacerations, was the fact that the pancreas had been ruptured and that the rupture was incapable of resulting for trauma however great. To the court, after a little research, pancreatitis is the inflammation of the pancreas whose major cause is excessive consumption of alcohol or gallstones. In his evidence the witness told the court that he ruled out alcohol as the cause of the inflammation. He however did not give a description of what he saw. He was content to say that the black fluid seen was acidic but did not tell the court what acid it was. He also failed to tell the court if the acid had affected the neighbouring tissues in any way. To this court, the pancreatic organ produces no acids but pancreatic enzymes which by themselves are just pro enzymes prior to release and before activation by the gastric acids in the duodenum. The opinion that the black fluid was acidic without a scientific test conducted may not be well founded an opinion to form a basis for the courts decision.The court views the report and opinion expresses by the witness as incoherence and inconclusive. For that reason the court chooses with lots of hesitation to disregard the opinion.The other reason why the opinion is disagreeable is the fact that there was no evidence of sickness by the deceased prior to the incident yet chronic pancreatitis as the name suggest presents itself as a severe and very uncomfortable condition.[2] In the doctors own words the body he examined was for a female of good nutrition. The court finds that not to align with the body of a victim of chronic pancreatitis.Having disregarded the report, the court is left with the evidence by PW2 and the dying declaration. It has been determined herein before, that there is sufficient evidence to connect the accused with the assault upon the deceased. There is equally a finding that in assaulting the deceased in the manner disclosed by PW2 and the injuries disclosed by the report filed, the accused must have intended, at the very least, to cause harm upon the deceased hence malice aforethought.The court thus finds that there has been proof beyond reasonable doubt that the accused assaulted the deceased inflicting extensive bodily injury upon her from which she succumbed. In afflicting such injuries, the court finds that the accused was accentuated by malice aforethought. He is thus found to have committed the offence of murder and convicted as charged. >> ><> ><> ><>><>><>< id>
www.mypathology report.ca ↑
2http://pubmed. Ncbi.nlm.nlh.gov ↑