Forensics not exact science, says Cassidy
While she refused to speak about the past week’s controversy over conflicting evidence in the Brian Murphy case, Dr Cassidy said the public needed to understand that forensic pathology was not an exact science and that all pathologists could do was give an opinion based on their findings.
“As an expert, we are allowed to give our opinion. Sometimes, people don’t understand that your opinion is your opinion. It’s not gospel,” she told a conference at Dublin City University.
“It’s not an exact science. That’s what we have to educate people about. We have to use science as much as we can but it’s not exact.”
Dr Cassidy sensationally contradicted the findings of her predecessor last week when she was asked to review Professor John Harbison’s report into the death of Dublin teenager Brian Murphy, who died after a melee outside Anabel’s Nightclub in the city six years ago.
Dermot Laide, one of four young men charged in connection with Brian Murphy’s death, was three days away from a retrial for manslaughter when Dr Cassidy submitted her review.
She concluded that the head injuries suffered by the victim were minor and that his death was more likely due to the consequences of the amount of alcohol he had consumed.
Prof Harbison, who is ill and can no longer attend court, had found Brian Murphy’s death to be a direct consequence of the injuries he received.
The Director of Public Prosecutions informed the Central Criminal Court last Monday that he was dropping the case against Dermot Laide.
Dr Cassidy said yesterday she could not speak about the Brian Murphy case. It is expected she will be involved in talks with Justice Minister Michael McDowell about ways of preventing similar problems arising in future.
But, speaking in general terms to an audience of science students and academics, she said the role of the pathologist was sometimes misunderstood.
“It’s not up to me to decide if somebody is innocent or guilty. People get confused about my role. I am there to assist the court. I am not there for the prosecution or the defence. I am there for everyone.
“I am there to try and interpret the medical and scientific evidence so that the court can understand it. I don’t work for the police.”
Dr Cassidy, who is from Scotland, also spoke of the Scottish system which requires two pathologists to attend each scene and work on each case together.
She said afterwards that the system worked well in Scotland but this was the only jurisdiction she knew where pathologists automatically worked in pairs. She foresaw difficulties for such a system in Ireland because of the shortage of people entering the profession.
By Michael Brennan
DR MARIE CASSIDY said the work of a state pathologist was not an exact science and that although she had never watched the US TV series Crime Scene Investigation (CSI), she knew that in many such programmes the pathologist was able to walk in and proclaim an exact time of death.
“And I always go, ‘Wow! Fire him!’ It’s not an exact science.”
Dr Cassidy, who began her work as a state pathologist in 1998, told the students of the injuries that could be inflicted with knives.
“What is the human body? Meat. Therefore, a steak knife will cut into a human body quite easily,” she said.
“The sad fact is that it takes very little to kill someone. We’re all very vulnerable.”
She said the investigation of a homicide involved a large team of people such as forensic dentists, entomologists to examine the maggots in a body to determine the time of death, and paediatric psychologists to examine the deaths of children.
She was asked if dealing with violent and often gruesome murders had an impact on her personal life.
“I don’t have nightmares. I don’t wake up in a cold sweat seeing all these bodies coming towards me,” replied Dr Cassidy.
