Legal medicine (Tokyo, Japan) · 2026
The role of bloodstain pattern analysis (BPA) in homicide reconstruction: A case of patricide involving two Brothers.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Caristo Isabella, Pinto Sara Lo, Barranco Rosario, Ventura Francesco
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: The term parricide refers to the killing of a close relative, though it commonly indicates the murder of one's father (patricide) or mother (matricide). This paper presents a case of patricide in Genoa involving two brothers, X and Ywhere Bloodstain Pattern Analysis (BPA) was key to reconstructing the crime dynamics.
CASE DESCRIPTION: The victim was found lying supine in the entrance of home. Near the body were a bloodstained rolling pin and screwdriver. Autopsy revealed 23 head and facial injuries, multiple skull fractures, and diffuse subarachnoid haemorrhage. Injury characteristics did not exclude the possibility of either a single assailant or a joint attack.
DISCUSSION: Analysis of the crime scene and the wounds found made it possible to hypothesize three phases of the attack in different parts of the house: a first attack while the victim was still conscious and trying to defend himself, a second while the victim was lying on the couch, at a disadvantage to the attacker, and a third with the victim now on the floor. BPA, applied to the scene and the brothers' clothing, distinguished between impact stains (spatter stains) and those from weapon movement, confirming this sequence. Notably, back-spatter stains on X's shirt back suggested he was turned away when a blow was delivered, indicating the presence of a second attacker. This evidence contradicted the defence's attempt to exclude Y from the crime, demonstrating both brothers' involvement.
CASE DESCRIPTION: The victim was found lying supine in the entrance of home. Near the body were a bloodstained rolling pin and screwdriver. Autopsy revealed 23 head and facial injuries, multiple skull fractures, and diffuse subarachnoid haemorrhage. Injury characteristics did not exclude the possibility of either a single assailant or a joint attack.
DISCUSSION: Analysis of the crime scene and the wounds found made it possible to hypothesize three phases of the attack in different parts of the house: a first attack while the victim was still conscious and trying to defend himself, a second while the victim was lying on the couch, at a disadvantage to the attacker, and a third with the victim now on the floor. BPA, applied to the scene and the brothers' clothing, distinguished between impact stains (spatter stains) and those from weapon movement, confirming this sequence. Notably, back-spatter stains on X's shirt back suggested he was turned away when a blow was delivered, indicating the presence of a second attacker. This evidence contradicted the defence's attempt to exclude Y from the crime, demonstrating both brothers' involvement.