Dr. Baden Q & A [6]
Leave questions for Dr. Baden at the Autopsy Bulletin Boards.
Have you ever looked into any famous historical murder cases, particularly Lizzie Borden or the Black Dahlia case?
Yes. One of the interesting aspects my work as a forensic pathologist is looking into deaths that happened some time ago and seeing how much can be learned about them by using modern technologies. I've described a number of these cases in the books I've written, Dead Reckoning and Unnatural Death, including the deaths of Czar Nicholas and the Romanov family, who were killed in 1918. I've been involved in -- and written about -- reviewing the deaths of the Lindbergh baby and the Boston Strangler by using modern techniques. The cases of Lizzie Borden and the Black Dahlia are interesting because, for all intents and purposes, neither was solved.
Lizzie Borden's name came into headlines on August 4th,1892, when her father and stepmother were found axed to death. A childhood verse sprang up about the case: "Lizzie Borden took an axe, gave her mother forty whacks. When she saw what she had done, she gave her father 41." What isn't generally known is that when she went to trial, she was found not guilty. She was a young woman who taught Sunday School in Fall River, Massachusetts and who was presented to the jury as an innocent, someone who could never do such horrific things. And the jury agreed. After she was found not guilty, the money she inherited enabled her to buy a home called Maplecroft on a hill in Fall River. She lived there, never marrying, until she died in 1927 of natural causes - 34 years after the horrific murder of her parents.
Recently, Professor Jim Starr of George Washington University in Washington, DC, has attempted to disinter the Bordens' remains in order to compare the injuries from the axe-like instrument to hatchets or axes that are in a Lizzie Borden museum in Fall River. But he hasn't been able to, yet. There's been a lot of opposition to the idea -- even though Starr's brought in ground penetrating radar and all kinds of new devices -- because the Borden murders remain an open case. The questions are then raised, "If Lizzie Borden didnÕt do it, who did do it?" and "Did they miss something during the trial in 1892?"
The Black Dahlia case is more recent. The Black Dahlia was a 22 year old woman, named Elizabeth Short, who wanted to be an actress. Her bruised and beaten,partially dismembered body was found on January 15th, 1947 in a vacant lot in Hollywood, California. She had black hair and used to wear black clothes, so the newspapers gave her the name Black Dahlia, which created a lot of interest in the case. One of the things that made this case notorious was that a number of people came forth and confessed, falsely, to being the murderer. It was an early example of notoriety spurring false confessions. And the case was never solved.
When a body is frozen, how is it possible to determine time of death?
When a body is frozen, the usual indicators of time of death -- rigor mortis, lividity and change in body temperature -- are no longer valid. So what I've found most valid in this circumstance is stomach contents. This is because once we've died and we're frozen, whatever is in the stomach stays that way and doesn't get further digested. And if it can be ascertained when and where the decedent had his/her last meal, we can tell by the state of digestion of the food how long the individual lived after eating it. And that becomes the most important factor in determining time of death in a frozen body.
How long after death does human blood remain viable for transfusion?
To my knowledge, blood from dead people has never been used for transfusion purposes in this country. It has been used in Russia; when somebody dies in a Russian hospital and the blood is rapidly removed, it can be used to transfuse living individuals. In this country we've never gone in that direction because of our societal concerns about taking blood for transfusion from dead bodies -- even though we take hearts and lungs, etc. But for a short period of time after death, blood can still be useful. Within an hour or two after death, there's a lot of breakdown of red cells, so those cells could cause more harm than good if transfused. But in the first minutes after the death, the blood could be used.
Is there an organ that is commonly the last to die?
In general, the brain is the first organ to die because the brain is most sensitive to loss of oxygen. Twenty-five percent of the oxygen we inhale with each breath goes to the brain. When we stop breathing, within minutes the brain starts losing neurons (brain cells) and the individual rapidly loses consciousness, goes into a coma and suffers brain death. The heart, on the other hand, is probably the last organ to die because it's just a muscle and when oxygen is not sufficient, muscles can use means other than oxygen to get energy. The heart will commonly beat as much as 15 minutes after the after the brain has died. (The periods of viability for the liver and lungs generally fall somewhere in between.) That's how a situation like Karen Ann Quinlan's can happen, in which the individual is saved after the brain is dead but the heart is still beating. Ms. Quinlan was kept alive for many years, with a beating heart, but never regaining consciousness.
So, if a heart, lung or liver is going to be transplanted, it must be done while the organ is still alive and being given oxygen, electrolytes and fluids, artificially after the brain is dead. Once the brain is dead and organ donation has been approved by the family, the hospital will continue to give fluids and oxygen to the donor -- who is essentially dead -- in order to keep the organs alive until they can be removed and given to somebody else. It's different with the skin, corneas and bone, however, as they remain intact and viable for a longer period of time; they can be removed and transplanted up to 24 hours after death without being given fluids and oxygen.
Could childhood immunizations cause death in an infant? If so, by what mechanism?
It has been claimed by some that childhood immunizations, especially DPT (Diptheria, Pertussis, Tetanus) immunization can cause Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. The basis for that claim is that Sudden Infant Death Syndrome occurs around the same time that this immunization is given, but there's no evidence to support the contention.
Is it possible to obtain viable DNA from cremated remains?
Cremation destroys DNA, so one cannot get usable DNA from cremation remains. However, teeth stay pretty intact even in cremation ashes. There have been a number of times I've had to examine cremation ashes -- which are called cremains -- because there's some kind of dispute as to whether an individual is actually dead, or whether there's been a mix-up or commingling of ashes at a crematorium. During these examinations we can't find DNA, but we can find teeth, fillings and posts. Also, artificial teeth are more difficult to destroy than natural teeth. One tooth, one post or one artificial tooth can be sufficient to identify the remains, even though DNA cannot be found.
Leave questions for Dr. Baden at the Autopsy Bulletin Boards.
|  |
