Nida Fatima
In contrast to evidence and consensus-based approaches, the majority of current forensic pathology autopsy procedures are based on personal experience and tradition. As a result, there is a chance that each application of knowledge will differ significantly. In the current case series, we discuss the difference in autopsy results of eight individuals who passed away simultaneously from severe asphyxia caused by compression during a human stampede, as reported by five independent pathologists. We saw that five of the reports failed to describe the availability of medical charts, three reports failed to address the possibility of resuscitation efforts being confused, seven reports failed to identify cardinal signs, and all reports failed to mention connected injuries to varying degrees. Additionally, pre-autopsy radiographs and an additional histological test were mentioned in six studies and two reports, respectively. We deduced that dependence on expertise and individual customary practices contributed to discrepancies in the autopsy reports and the deletion of crucial details such cardinal indications, and we came to the conclusion that this increased the risk of error in the conduct of autopsies. We contend that pre-autopsy information gathering and the use of checklists tailored to certain injury causes are likely to lead to a reduction in forensic pathology's departure from evidence-based practices. Pre-autopsy data collection and checklists will aid in ensuring a higher level of standardization in autopsy reports, improving the report's quality and accuracy as a legal record and making it more beneficial for data collection activities.