检索规则说明:AND代表“并且”;OR代表“或者”;NOT代表“不包含”;(注意必须大写,运算符两边需空一格)
检 索 范 例 :范例一: (K=图书馆学 OR K=情报学) AND A=范并思 范例二:J=计算机应用与软件 AND (U=C++ OR U=Basic) NOT M=Visual
机构地区:[1]福建宗证司法鉴定所,福建福州363100 [2]皖南医学院医学三系,法医学专业安徽芜湖241001
出 处:《法医学杂志》2009年第2期127-129,共3页Journal of Forensic Medicine
摘 要:目的探讨致伤物推断的法医学鉴定及其鉴定意见的证据价值。方法收集1998—2007年间皖南医学院司法鉴定中心受理的致伤物推断案件146例,通过人体体表损伤特征的分析,推断致伤物。并通过推断致伤物与实际致伤物的比较,分析致伤物推断的准确性。结果根据锐器伤推断致伤物的准确性要比根据钝器伤推断致伤物的准确性高。结论致伤物推断结果尚存在一定的不确定性,必须结合其他证据,才能作为定案的依据。Objective To study the deduction of injury-causing instruments and its value as judicial evidence. Methods To collect 146 cases involved in injury-causing instruments deduction, which accepted by Judicial Appraisal Center of Wannan Medical College during the period from 1998 to 2007, then to deduce the instrument by analyzing the characters of injuries in body surface. The accuracy of those deductions was evaluated by comparing the deduced instruments with the actual instruments. Results The deduction from sharp injuries was more accurate than that from blunt injuries. Conclusion Sometimes the result of deduction about injury-causing instruments are uncertain, it may be accepted as judicial evidence when supported by other evidences.
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在链接到云南高校图书馆文献保障联盟下载...
云南高校图书馆联盟文献共享服务平台 版权所有©
您的IP:216.73.216.145