Citation

Mansueto G. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022; 19(21): e14221.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2022, MDPI: Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute)

DOI

10.3390/ijerph192114221

PMID

36361101

Abstract

Identifying the morphological findings of vitality is crucial when determining if a lesion was inflicted in life or postmortem. It is difficult to place all vitality criteria in a broad context when doubt arises between a homicidal death and a suicidal death. The differential diagnosis between total hanging and partial hanging, strangulation and throttling represents a flotant and obscure limbo, especially in unusual finds. The forensic pathologist is not always certain, but is increasingly hindered in their diagnosis by the need for on-the-spot investigation and the first external cadaver examination. Often, in fact, the first erroneous reconstruction of the facts is misled by unusual situations, and a non-coincident pathological diagnosis is not considered. Therefore, collaboration between different specialists remains delicate and necessary.

Currently, as evidenced by the literature that we reviewed in a previous paper [1], researchers have not discovered many specific molecular and immunohistochemical markers or valid uses for them in the easier diagnosis of viability in ligature marks [1]. The only criteria that remain firmly established are represented by microscopic findings that must be framed in a wider context through the expert eyes of a pathologist. My opinion is that only in this way can we provide useful tips to those who come across particular cases on a daily basis that require experience and support for legal purposes.

Before even relying on hypothetical immunohistochemical or molecular markers, it is necessary to carry out careful external examination of the corpse, evaluating multiple differential diagnoses, even when the inspection is completely directed towards suicide or homicide...

Language: en