Background. Determining the cause and manner of death in scenes involving multiple and putrified bodies found in the same environment is a real challenge for forensic pathologists. While common scenarios include fires, vehicle crashes, and natural disasters, one of the most common causes is drug intoxication or poisoning, and the scene must be carefully evaluated based on circumstantial evidence. Carbon monoxide (CO) (also called “the silent killer”) remains one of the leading agents capable of producing simultaneous fatalities. In multi-body scenes, distinguishing between homicide–suicide, double suicide, and accidental deaths adds further complexity. The aim of this study is to highlight the limitations of toxicological and pathological investigations in advanced putrefaction and to emphasize the role of scene investigation in the interpretation of suspected CO-related deaths. Methods. The authors report a case of suspected CO intoxication involving two bodies in an advanced stage of decomposition recovered from the same room. The scene investigation, coupled with the presence of a malfunctioning combustion source, raised suspicion of CO exposure; however, analytical interpretation was severely constrained by the altered condition of biological samples. Results. Advanced decomposition magnifies these challenges. Putrefactive changes can mimic traumatic injuries, hide hypostasis, and compromise both macroscopic and microscopic evaluations due to autolysis and gas formation. Toxicological investigations are frequently hindered by the degradation or absence of key biological matrices such as blood, cavity fluids, or vitreous humor, rendering carboxyhaemoglobin quantification unreliable or impossible. These limitations may lead to incorrect medico-legal conclusions. Conclusions. Determining the cause and manner of death in complex multi-body scenes requires careful evaluation of circumstantial evidence and scene investigation, particularly when advanced decomposition compromises biological analyses and toxicological interpretation.
Gabrielli et al. (Wed,) studied this question.