In the opinion, Dr. Gipps noted that the deceased's body was charred with severe changes as a result of heat action, the main ones of which included amputation of the limbs, fractures and missing bones, missing skin and soft tissues, and the effect of heat actions on the internal organs to the point of complete embalming, more on the right side of the body. Apart from the findings resulting from the fire, no other explosive findings were found; Although the defendants' statements indicate that the main injuries were blunt bruises on the complainant's head, in view of the extensive changes in the action of the heat (which included a lack of soft tissues and bones of the skull dome and the cooking of brain tissue), it is not possible to confirm or deny their version.
It was also noted that in order to assess whether the date of death preceded the fire, it is sometimes possible to try to use autopsy findings and laboratory tests that can attest to smoke inhalation and combustion products, i.e., fire while the deceased is alive. However, in our case, the changes caused by the fire were so severe, since a "muddy" substance was found in the trachea and bronchi that apparently originated from the cooking of blood and soft tissues, and due to the condition of the body, no blood was even found for laboratory tests. Therefore, it is not possible to assess whether the deceased was alive at the time of the fire or whether it caused his death.
In light of all of the above, the expert determined that due to the condition of the body, the cause of death could not be determined.
The opinion also noted that in a urine sample taken from the deceased, a minimal level of alcohol was found, a finding that could be reconciled with the process of decay; A metabolic product of the active ingredient in cannabis was also found, indicating exposure to cannabis in the last days before death.
In her testimony before us, Dr. Gipps clarified that the autopsy was performed a few days after the body arrived at the Institute and after the external examination, due to bureaucratic reasons, in view of the waiting for the identification of the deceased and the issuance of another order after his identification, since he was initially defined as anonymous; and that at the time of the autopsy, Dr. Deborah Katani was also present on behalf of the defense.