FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1829037508> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1829037508 endingPage "180" @default.
• W1829037508 startingPage "172" @default.
• W1829037508 abstract "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." @default.
• W1829037508 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1829037508 creator A5038539308 @default.
• W1829037508 date "2002-04-01" @default.
• W1829037508 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W1829037508 title "Did He Drown or was He Murdered?" @default.
• W1829037508 cites W1694823186 @default.
• W1829037508 cites W2010658585 @default.
• W1829037508 cites W2040834209 @default.
• W1829037508 cites W2043429759 @default.
• W1829037508 cites W2071627620 @default.
• W1829037508 cites W2074340574 @default.
• W1829037508 cites W4249774404 @default.
• W1829037508 doi "https://doi.org/10.1177/002580240204200209" @default.
• W1829037508 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12033473" @default.
• W1829037508 hasPublicationYear "2002" @default.
• W1829037508 type Work @default.
• W1829037508 sameAs 1829037508 @default.
• W1829037508 citedByCount "4" @default.
• W1829037508 countsByYear W18290375082021 @default.
• W1829037508 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1829037508 hasAuthorship W1829037508A5038539308 @default.
• W1829037508 hasConcept C121332964 @default.
• W1829037508 hasConcept C126965237 @default.
• W1829037508 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W1829037508 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W1829037508 hasConcept C21240300 @default.
• W1829037508 hasConcept C24890656 @default.
• W1829037508 hasConcept C2776213154 @default.
• W1829037508 hasConcept C2778681941 @default.
• W1829037508 hasConcept C3017944768 @default.
• W1829037508 hasConcept C526869908 @default.
• W1829037508 hasConcept C545542383 @default.
• W1829037508 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W1829037508 hasConcept C80114427 @default.
• W1829037508 hasConcept C95457728 @default.
• W1829037508 hasConcept C97460637 @default.
• W1829037508 hasConceptScore W1829037508C121332964 @default.
• W1829037508 hasConceptScore W1829037508C126965237 @default.
• W1829037508 hasConceptScore W1829037508C17744445 @default.
• W1829037508 hasConceptScore W1829037508C199539241 @default.
• W1829037508 hasConceptScore W1829037508C21240300 @default.
• W1829037508 hasConceptScore W1829037508C24890656 @default.
• W1829037508 hasConceptScore W1829037508C2776213154 @default.
• W1829037508 hasConceptScore W1829037508C2778681941 @default.
• W1829037508 hasConceptScore W1829037508C3017944768 @default.
• W1829037508 hasConceptScore W1829037508C526869908 @default.
• W1829037508 hasConceptScore W1829037508C545542383 @default.
• W1829037508 hasConceptScore W1829037508C71924100 @default.
• W1829037508 hasConceptScore W1829037508C80114427 @default.
• W1829037508 hasConceptScore W1829037508C95457728 @default.
• W1829037508 hasConceptScore W1829037508C97460637 @default.
• W1829037508 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W1829037508 hasLocation W18290375081 @default.
• W1829037508 hasLocation W18290375082 @default.
• W1829037508 hasOpenAccess W1829037508 @default.
• W1829037508 hasPrimaryLocation W18290375081 @default.
• W1829037508 hasRelatedWork W1829037508 @default.
• W1829037508 hasRelatedWork W2045977023 @default.
• W1829037508 hasRelatedWork W2050174002 @default.
• W1829037508 hasRelatedWork W20860572 @default.
• W1829037508 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W1829037508 hasRelatedWork W2796111687 @default.
• W1829037508 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
• W1829037508 hasRelatedWork W4300681462 @default.
• W1829037508 hasRelatedWork W84824021 @default.
• W1829037508 hasRelatedWork W2171079373 @default.
• W1829037508 hasVolume "42" @default.
• W1829037508 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1829037508 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1829037508 magId "1829037508" @default.
• W1829037508 workType "article" @default.