Can an autopsy determine if someone is dead?

Question

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080704/ap_on_re_us/missing_girl

Answer 1

I hope they would be dead before they cut into someone.  I think what they meant to say is the autopsy didn't determine if she was killed or died of natural causes.

Answer 2

I think the ambiguity, in this case, lies in medical-forensic jargon that is used in forensic pathology.  Authopsies (aka necropsies, post-mortems) are performed after death by definition.  When a death is discovered which clearly appears unnatural, as in this case, before formal charges can be brought against the suspect, a forensic pathologist is called upon to determine cause of death and MANNER OF DEATH.  The issue at hand is not whether the girl is dead, obviously she is.  The forensic pathologist performing the autopsy will attempt to determine WHY the person died an unnatural death (specific ultimate cause), but additionally to provide an expert opinion of the MANNER of the unnatural death (accidental, suicide, homicide, etc.).  This information is not going to resurrect the young girl, rather it is critical before the state can bring formal charges against the accused.  If for example the forensic pathologist doesn't have sufficient evidence that the manner of death was homicide (e.g. suppose it was dehydration and cardiovascular collapse/hypovolemic shock), technically the manner of death would not necessirily be homicide as it pertains it pertains, legally.  If the manner of death is deemed, indeed, to be homicide, then for legal purposes, the state can bring formal charges of kidnapping and homicide.  Although in this case it seems rather cut and dry, the legal system, with respect to criminal law does have some strict guidelines as to what evidence is required to bring certain charges against the accused.  Sometimes determining manner of death is awfully difficult and before the state makes an assumption that the accused was the victim of homicide, there must be sufficient evidence that homicide was the direct reason for the person's death.  If homicide can't be established forensically, then the state doesn't have reasonable grounds to charge one with a given legal term for the NATURE of the homicide (whether it be murder, manslaughter, etc.).  

In this particular case, even if the autopsy cannot demonstrate that the little girl died in a manner consistent with homicide, yet the kidnapping and chain of events which ensued led to her unnatural death, then clearly this will have legal implications, both with respect to criminal law and civil.

In short, it boils down to the system of criminal justice which presumes the accused to be innocent until proven otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt.  Part of that burden relies on the state's ability to use evidence (e.g. testimony of a Med. Examiner or Forensic Pathologist) with respect to both the cause and manner of death.  The manner of death as deemed by the expert testimony/certification of the forensic pathologist will have implications as to the formal charges brought against a defendant in a criminal proceeding.

Answer 3

I would hope that they are NOT preforing an autopsy if the person is not dead.

Answer 4

The article stated that the autopsy results were not back yet, but they could not determine that she was killed. This doesn't mean that she wasn't dead, just that she may not have been killed(murdered) as opposed to her dying a natural death. The way the article was written is kind of confusing.

Answer 5

I think that should read 'how' not 'whether'. A typo. Sack the proofreader.

Answer 6

yes

Answer 7

well u have to be dead to have an autopsy done on you,

an autopsy determines how someone died.