I'm a bit mind-boggled by the actions of police in Wimbledon, England.
When police pulled a headless body from a river, you would not have thought it needed a doctor to confirm the person was dead.
But there are rules and procedures to follow. And a medic was duly called in to declare that the man in question was actually ‘life extinct’.
Yesterday a coroner expressed surprise at why a doctor was summoned.
‘Even though there was no head, and the maggots, you had to call him in?’ Dr Shirley Radcliffe asked Det Insp Chuk Gwams.
The officer replied: ‘Yes Ma’am. They are the experts, we are not.’
There's more at the link.
Y'know . . . if I found a body without a head, I don't think I'd need a doctor to know that the victim was dead! Isn't this taking specialization a wee bit too far?
It reminds me of the famous (alleged) exchange between a cross-examining lawyer and a pathologist.
Lawyer: Do you recall the time that you examined the body?
Pathologist: The autopsy started around 8:30 p.m.
Lawyer: And Mr. Johnson was dead at the time?
Pathologist: (Sighing heavily) No, he was sitting on the table wondering why I was conducting an autopsy on him.
The next day the testimony of the doctor continued (same lawyer).
Lawyer: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse?
Lawyer: Did you check for blood pressure?
Lawyer: Did you check for breathing?
Lawyer: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy?
Lawyer: How can you be so sure, Doctor?
Pathologist: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar.
Lawyer: But could the patient have still been alive nevertheless?
Pathologist: (Sighing heavily) I suppose it's possible that he could have been alive and practicing law somewhere . . .