Hans H. de Boer^1,2, Judith Fronczek^1,2, Melanie Archer^1,2 

¹Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine, Southbank, Victoria, Australia; ²Department of Forensic Medicine, Monash University, Southbank, Victoria, Australia 

Forensic pathology aims to be an evidence-based specialty, and when in court, forensic pathologists are expected to provide opinions that are based on experience, expertise, and the best available medical and scientific knowledge. Such forensic pathology evidence is mostly well-accepted and uncontroversial. There are however deficiencies associated with the empirical underpinning of some forensic pathology opinions. First, there can be issues with the application of experience and published research to individual cases. Second, substantial impediments exist to conducting certain types of forensic pathology research, for instance due to an inability to ethically replicate casework conditions. Without clear guidance by robust scientific evidence, practitioners may be left to their own devices when addressing specific questions in court. This increases the risk of inaccurate, ‘eminence-based’ opinions, which may ultimately affect justice delivery. More generally, the above issues also hamper the development of forensic pathology academically. This presentation presents a possible way forward, by advocating for performing a systematic discipline-led analysis of the empirical foundations of specific forensic pathology opinions.