:twocents::twocents::twocents: Okay, let's address the typo.
When I first read the post report, I was less than overwhelmed with it. It just wasn't what I've routinely read & participated in but it was complete. The format & style is different but I believe that is a regional thing. For me, dividing out the trauma conditions from the overall body conditions set the stage for misinterpretation if a superficial read was conducted (okay, like I did the first "run thru"!).
Reading the COD as determined by the post, I completely agreed but thought that differing terminology might be employed and had absolutely no issue with leaving out the GSW as a COD.
Following the internal examination details, the condition of the dura mater as it was written appeared to relate to the brain OTHER than the area of trauma (see, told ya it was a unique format & style!).
Yes, autopsy reports ARE prepared using "boilerplate" formats, yes, reading them or "proofing" them can sometimes become autonomous BUT admitting the error is critical to retaining one's credibility.
YES, JW & KN will try to "hang their hats" on this error BUT logic should prevail when one evaluates the entire body of scientific information.
:twocents::twocents: ALL MY OWN OPINION :twocents::twocents: