Homicides in two Scandinavian capitals.

In this study we investigated homicides in the two Scandinavian capitals, Copenhagen, Denmark and Oslo, Norway, for the 10-year period from 1985 to 1994. The total number of homicides was 431; 63.8% occurred in Copenhagen and 36.2% in Oslo. The average homicide rate was 1.6/100,000 in Copenhagen and 1.8/100,000 in Oslo. Blunt force, sharp force, and strangulation were the most common methods. Firearms were also used but did not account for >20% in either of the two cities. This is probably due to strict gun laws in both countries. There was no clear difference between the homicide victim populations in the two cities with regard to age, gender, or social and marital status. The proportion of alcoholics and unemployed persons was much higher than in the background population and to a similar extent in both cities, indicating that the homicide victim populations differ from the background populations. The perpetrator knew the victim in the majority of the cases. The most frequent motives or circumstances in both cities were fights, family rows, financial controversies, or jealousy.     

Judicial Summation: The Trial Judge's Version of the Facts or the Chimera of Neutrality

This paper analyses some of the rhetorical and linguistic features of two judges' summations to two different juries in a criminal case that was tried twice in the Tasmanian Criminal Court. In the first trial, the jury failed to reach a verdict upon a number of counts in the indictment. In the second trial, the jury returned guilty verdicts on all counts. The purpose of this paper is to cast light upon how the linguistic and rhetorical features observed in the summations lent colour or weight to a particular interpretation of the events tried. The paper argues that the judge's summing up is part of the persuasive process of the criminal trial and that judges do present a version of the facts to the jury, deploying various language strategies to construct and communicate that version. The analysis focuses solely upon the judges' summing up of the evidence and the facts. It does not deal with directions or determinations concerning the law. Three major differences between the summations are considered: their distinct thematic approaches to the factual issues, the disparate levels of assistance they provide to the jury in assessing the evidence and their relative comprehensibility. The different thematic approaches produced disparate choices concerning the evidence -- its selection for consideration and its evaluation. The approach in the first summation resulted in an analysis of the evidence that favoured the accused. In the second summation, the thematic approach facilitated a more critical appraisal of the accused's case and a more favourable assessment of the complainant's version of events. The summations also provide differential levels of assistance and achieve differential levels of comprehensibility. The first summation provides relatively little guidance to the jury in evaluating significant items of evidence. In contrast, the second trial summation gives a more directional appraisal. It also achieves a greater level of clarity in the communication of key ideas than the first summation. Both distinctions are attributed to the discourse structures of the summations and to the second summation's reliance upon such organisational and rhetorical devices as repetition, enumeration and rhetorical questions. They are also attributed in part to the comparative syntactic simplicity of the second summation's sentences. It is the conclusion of this paper that the trial judge's linguistic, discourse construction and rhetorical skills are central to the clarification or obfuscation of the facts and issues in a case. How judges say what they say is significant at two levels of sense construction -- at the level of what Bernard Jackson calls signification and at the level of communication.     

Image analysis of gunshot residue on entry wounds. II--A statistical estimation of firing range.

A statistical investigation of the relationship between firing range and the amount and distribution of gunshot residue (GSR), used automated image analysis (IA) to quantify GSR deposit resulting from firings into pig skin, from distances ranging between contact and 45 cm. Overall, for a Ruger .22 semi-automatic rifle using CCI solid point, high velocity ammunition, the total area of GSR deposit on the skin sections decreased in a non-linear fashion with firing range. More specifically there were significant differences in the amount of GSR deposited from shots fired at contact compared with shots fired from distances between 2.5 and 45 cm; and between shots fired from a distance of 20 cm or less, with shots fired at a distance of 30 cm or more. In addition, GSR particles were heavily concentrated in the wound tract only for contact and close range shots at 2.5 cm, while the particle distribution was more uniform between the wound tract and the skin surfaces for shots fired from distances greater than 2.5 cm. Consequently, for future scientific investigations of gunshot fatalities, once standards have been established for the weapon and ammunition type in question, image analysis quantification of GSR deposited in and around the gunshot wound may be capable of providing a reliable, statistical basis for estimating firing range.     

Fatality caused by a combined trimipramine-citalopram intoxication

A 53-year-old woman who was diagnosed as suffering from depression was found dead in her bed. The autopsy revealed no morphological changes sufficient to explain death. Toxicological analysis was performed and the drugs trimipramine (2.33 mg/l), citalopram (4.81 mg/l) and zolpidem (0.07 mg/l) were identified in the femoral blood. A combined drug intoxication resulting in synergistic effects to cardiovascular disorders was proposed as the cause of death. An acute overdose and suicide was suggested by calculation of the parent drug to main metabolite ratios in femoral blood and liver tissue. The trimipramine to desmethyltrimipramine ratios were calculated to be 2.06 and 3.18, the citalopram to desmethylcitalopram ratios were 1.96 and 2.02.