Problem with that, as I heard explained on PM last night is that the first PM

was the only chance to determine the Primary Facts - the facts of the condition of the body that can only be determined a few hours post mortem. So if there were any bruises, pooling of blood, etc etc that were salient to the cause of death, they could only be determined by the first PM.

So the 2nd and 3rd PMs had to base their conclusions on the Primary Facts as determined by the first pathologist, because it was impossible to do it themselves.

But if the case is made that the findings of the first PM are not sound because of incompetence, then you're also saying that the Primary Facts, on which the subsequent pathologists based their finding are also unsound, meaning that you cannot trust the findings of those PMs.

Posted By: Arizona Bay, Jul 23, 10:11:10