Elevated morphine concentrations determined during infant death investigations: artifacts of withdrawal of care

Abstract:  Three cases are reported of elevated postmortem blood morphine concentrations (189–3036 ng/mL) that were observed during the course of death investigations involving three children ranging in age from 1 week to 2 years, all of whom underwent withdrawal of life support. In all three cases, the presence of opiates in postmortem blood was indicated by immunoassay (ELISA) and quantitative confirmatory analysis of free morphine concentrations in postmortem blood was performed by solid-phase extraction followed by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) in the selected ion monitoring mode. While the practice of withdrawing life support from terminally ill patients, with the accompanying administration of narcotics/analgesics has been reported in the medical literature, it has not been adequately described in the forensic literature. The implications of this practice on the forensic toxicological interpretation of morphine findings are discussed. To our knowledge, this is the first report of postmortem morphine concentrations arising directly from administration in conjunction with withdrawal of care in pediatric patients.     

Forensic implications of biting behavior: a conceptually underdeveloped area of investigation

Within the context of a criminal investigation the human bitemark traditionally provides the forensic dentist with both physical and biological evidence. In recent years, however, examples exist where in addition to discussing physical and biological evidence, expert witnesses have also testified in court regarding the behavioral aspects of biting behavior. Interested in this additional source of evidence, the authors reviewed the research literature from which biting behavior could be explained. The review found a hiatus of empirical knowledge in this respect, with only two papers seemingly related to the topic. With this dearth of knowledge in mind, the authors present a framework for further analysis and tentatively suggest reasons for biting behaviors, using a range of psychological models. The article ends with a cautionary note that vague and often misleading behavioral assumptions must not be applied to bitemark testimony until further data are available.