Veterinary Forensic Pathology

Abstract

Veterinary forensic pathology is emerging as a distinct discipline, and this special issue is a major step forward in establishing the scientific basis of the discipline. A forensic necropsy uses the same skill set needed for investigations of natural disease, but the analytical framework and purpose of forensic pathology differ significantly. The requirement of legal credibility and all that it entails distinguishes the forensic from routine diagnostic cases. Despite the extraordinary depth and breadth of knowledge afforded by their training, almost 75% of veterinary pathologists report that their training has not adequately prepared them to handle forensic cases. Many veterinary pathologists, however, are interested and willing to develop expertise in the discipline. Lessons learned from tragic examples of wrongful convictions in medical forensic pathology indicate that a solid foundation for the evolving discipline of veterinary forensic pathology requires a commitment to education, training, and certification. The overarching theme of this issue is that the forensic necropsy is just one aspect in the investigation of a case of suspected animal abuse or neglect. As veterinary pathologists, we must be aware of the roles filled by other veterinary forensic experts involved in these cases and how our findings are an integral part of an investigation. We hope that the outcome of this special issue of the journal is that veterinary pathologists begin to familiarize themselves with not only forensic pathology but also all aspects of veterinary forensic science.

Veterinary forensic pathology is emerging as a distinct discipline, and this special issue is a major step forward in establishing the scientific basis of the discipline.* In contrast, the field of veterinary forensic science is well established, as evinced by the increasing number of publications, international meetings, and online certificate or degree programs. Organizations such as the International Forensic Veterinary Sciences Association (IVFSA) and the North American Veterinary Community (NAVC) routinely offer workshops on veterinary forensic sciences, and the American Academy of Forensic Sciences (AAFS) sponsored a veterinary forensic workshop and accepts veterinarians as members. Although most veterinary pathologists have performed at least one medicolegal postmortem, veterinary forensic pathology is sporadically practiced by most pathologists, and an opportunity for additional credentials in this discipline does not currently exist. ¹⁶

A forensic necropsy uses the same skill set needed for investigations of natural disease, but the analytical framework and purpose of forensic pathology differ significantly. ¹⁰ The requirement of legal credibility and all that it entails distinguishes the forensic case from routine diagnostic cases. ¹² Despite the extraordinary depth and breadth of knowledge afforded by their training, almost 75% of veterinary pathologists report that their training has not adequately prepared them to handle forensic cases. ² The dearth of veterinary pathologists actively involved in forensic pathology, the reluctance of others, and the outright refusal of some pathologists and institutions to take forensic cases often leave veterinary clinicians with no alternative but to perform their own postmortem examination without formal training beyond what they received as veterinary students. As many of these veterinarians are employed by animal shelters and humane societies that also investigate allegations of animal abuse, there may be perception of conflict of interest, which is unfairly prejudicial to those veterinarians who are neutral to the outcome. It is argued that forensic postmortem examinations should only be performed by veterinary pathologists, even though most acknowledged inadequate training in forensic sciences. ¹⁹ We must learn from tragic examples of the systemic failings of some medical pathologists who did not understand their role in the judicial system as a result of inadequate oversight, training, certification, and biased opinions. ¹² Dr Michael Pollanen, ²³ chief forensic pathologist for the province of Ontario, Canada, addresses these issues and provides suggestions on how, as a profession, we can avoid some of the egregious errors that resulted in the wrongful convictions of many innocent people and the failure to convict a true perpetrator: (1) pathologists must seek the truth and avoid an a priori “think dirty” stance, (2) training and certification are the foundation of a reliable forensic pathology system, and (3) institutional support for research, service, and teaching is essential to prevent stagnation of knowledge.

But how well do veterinary pathologists currently serve the justice system? Unlike the situation in human pathology, most if not all veterinary pathology cases are user-pay. Our forensic postmortem investigations are expensive because they are time-consuming and often require costly additional tests such as diagnostic imaging and toxicology. In addition, there are no dedicated veterinary forensic pathology laboratories. Some pathologists maintain that because we do not have a medical examiner system, forensic cases should be treated the same as those of natural disease. ¹⁹ But should society expect anything less from forensic cases involving crimes against animals than those dealing with crimes against people? Should the justice system relax its standards because the crime is against an animal? We do not propose to answer these questions; however, it is imperative that veterinary pathologists take a hard look at what we do, what we do well, and what needs improving when dealing with forensic cases. A solid foundation for this evolving discipline of veterinary forensic pathology requires a commitment to education, training, and certification.

Surveys and publications on veterinary forensic pathology affirm that many veterinary pathologists are interested and willing to develop expertise in the discipline. ^19,21,22,25 As a start, this special issue on veterinary forensic pathology builds on the excellent work of pioneers in veterinary forensic medicine and pathology—John and Margaret Cooper ⁵ and Ranald and Helen Munro ²⁰ —as well as a cadre of wildlife pathologists who have dealt with forensic cases for many years. The peer-reviewed articles in this issue tackle many aspects of veterinary forensic pathology. ^† Most are reviews that critically appraise the dogma of medical forensic pathology and its application to animals but also contain pragmatic information for pathologists who receive these cases. Significant barriers to veterinary pathologists entering the field of forensic pathology include lack of experience as an expert witness, lack of knowledge of the medicolegal system, and unfamiliarity with evidence collection and handling. The commentary by Frederickson ⁹ in this issue sheds light on the expectations of an expert witness and explains basic courtroom procedures. Likewise, the article by Touroo and Fitch ²⁹ provides practical advice on collecting and preserving forensic evidence. The significant link between animal cruelty and interpersonal violence described by Lockwood and Arkow ¹⁵ affirms the unique and important public health role veterinary pathologists have in these cases, because “when animals are abused, people are at risk; when people are abused, animals are at risk.”

The overarching theme of this issue is that the forensic necropsy is just one aspect in the investigation of a case of suspected animal abuse or neglect. As pathologists, we must be aware of the roles filled by other veterinary forensic experts involved in these cases and how our findings are an integral part of an investigation. We hope that the outcome of this special issue of the journal is that veterinary pathologists begin to familiarize themselves with not only forensic pathology but also all aspects of veterinary forensic science.

The comments by Dominick and Vincent DiMaio, ⁷ 2 preeminent forensic pathologists, highlight the need for veterinary pathology to foster high standards of professionalism among veterinary pathologists engaged in forensic pathology:

[The police] prefer the charlatan who tells them what they want to hear to the expert who tells them unpalatable truths or that conclusions cannot be made. One of the characteristics of the unqualified expert in forensic pathology is an ability to interpret a case in exquisite detail. This “expert” sets the time of death, plus or minus a few minutes, accurately positions the deceased, and gives detailed analysis of the events surrounding the death and precise deductions about the assault. If the police have expressed prior opinions, it is not uncommon for the opinions of the “expert” to agree almost in complete detail with the police hypotheses. The experienced forensic pathologist tends to hedge, knows there may be more than one interpretation of a set of facts, and is more “wishy-washy” than the charlatan.

This special issue devoted to veterinary forensic pathology is an important first step in propelling this distinct discipline along the path to scientific and legal credibility.