Did he drown or was he murdered?

An unemployed, 60-year-old Singaporean gentleman died during a brief overseas trip to another South-East Asian country. He had, presumably, drowned in the bathtub of his hotel room, which he shared with his then 44-year-old companion, who was supposedly his nephew. The relevant public health and medico-legal authorities of the host country conducted an external examination of the body at the scene, whereupon they agreed with the police that his death was probably due to accidental drowning following an episode of syncope. It would appear that this verdict was based almost entirely on circumstantial and hearsay evidence. No autopsy was performed. In its place, considerable reliance was placed on the observation that abdominal compression resulted in the outflow of a small amount of water from the mouth, as being proof of drowning. A few days later, the body was cremated in the host country and the remains (ashes) were subsequently repatriated to Singapore. It later transpired that, shortly before they embarked on the ill-fated trip, the deceased's 'nephew' had purchased, on the former's behalf, travel insurance policies (covering accidental injury and death) amounting to a total of S$800,000 from five different insurance companies, as well as a separate life policy for a further S$100,000, most of which had been issued within the fortnight prior to their departure. Interestingly, the beneficiary (later the plaintiff in the ensuing civil trial some three years later) of all of these policies, was the ex-wife of the deceased's 'nephew', with whom he had, in fact, continued to live although they were officially divorced several years ago. Whilst the claim against the life policy had been settled, the first five insurers declined to issue payment on grounds of suspicion that the deceased had been the victim of a homicide, planned or executed by the 'nephew', wherein the beneficiary was a conspirator of sorts. The author was approached by defence counsel (representing the various insurers), for assistance in this matter. It was felt that a proper forensic review was seriously hampered by the lack of a full autopsy which would have been indispensable in ascertaining the actual cause of death and in eliminating other possibilities, apart from drowning, such as death from natural causes, other forms of injury, poisoning, or homicide. It was also emphasized that the mere presence of ingested water is not diagnostic of drowning. Eventually, after a protracted but unsuccessful attempt at mediation (in the course of which, the plaintiff rejected the offer of a reduced, although apparently sizable quantum), the matter came before the High Court, which found in favour of the defendants. It appeared that the judge was more than convinced that the deceased was indeed the victim of a homicide of which the plaintiff was a conspirator and her ex-husband, the perpetrator, as even a cursory perusal of the written judgement would indicate. Accordingly, the court ruled that the plaintiff (in her capacity as both the beneficiary of the insurance policies and executor of the estate) and her ex-husband had, effectively, deprived the insurers of their contractual right (as stipulated in the insurance policies) to have an autopsy conducted on the body of the deceased and they were, therefore, entitled to deny liability. This case illustrates the difficulties inherent in conducting an independent review of a putative instance of drowning, where convincing and reliable forensic evidence and documentation are largely wanting; this being compounded by its occurrence in a foreign jurisdiction whose medico-legal practices differ substantially from that to which one is accustomed. It may even be said that the corpus delecti was destroyed, in this instance, by cremation. It is also unusual in that a de-facto finding of murder was made in a civil court (whose standard of proof is that of a balance of probabilities) and that this had, subsequently, spurred the police to undertake a criminal investigation for conspiracy to murder. In the event, the civil appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal, but no charge was laid against any of the suspects for want of sufficient forensic or investigative evidence of a criminal offence having been committed.