Confirming the origin of the water is scientifically tenuous

May 16, 2025 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

Peeping Tom…

Kaieteur News-  Since the autopsy report found that the 11-year-old child drowned, there has been a shift in the narrative. It is now being speculated that the child could have drowned in a bathtub and then dumped into the pool. This theory has led for calls for any liquids found in the girl’s lungs and stomach to be tested to see whether it is pool water or tap water.

However, in my opinion, confirming the origin of the water from samples taken one week after the body’s discovery—is scientifically tenuous and fraught with limitations. I am not sure whether it’s possible for the source of the water, found in the body, to be determined. I am not certain whether this could have ever been determined.

Forensic crime investigation is advanced in developed countries. But even forensic science has its limitations.  As such people need to lower their expectations that forensic science may be able to prove the source of the liquids found in the child’s lungs and stomach. People like to believe that forensics can answer any question. But even science has its limitations.

Autopsies conducted several days after death, are usually compromised by autolysis and putrefaction—natural processes that break down body tissues and contaminate internal fluids. These processes can significantly alter the chemical composition of both the lung fluid and stomach contents, making precise analysis extremely difficult. In water-related deaths, decomposition further complicates the identification of exogenous substances like chlorine from water sources.

When a person drowns, water enters the airways and lungs, and sometimes the stomach. However, the amount of water taken in is often small, and the concentration of diagnostic chemicals (like chlorine) can be low to begin with. These fluids mix with bodily secretions, are metabolized or altered by enzymes, and are also subject to leaching if the body is submerged for an extended period. Over the span of a week, most of the chemical markers that could indicate a water source—such as chlorine, or pH differences—are diluted, neutralized, or degraded.

While it might seem logical to test for chlorine—a chemical found in swimming pools—it is not a reliable postmortem marker. Chlorine is highly volatile and reactive. It quickly binds to organic material or evaporates. Free chlorine, the active disinfectant in pools, loses its distinct chemical signature rapidly, especially in biological environments. After one week, even if the victim had drowned in a heavily chlorinated pool, any chlorine would almost certainly have dissipated or been metabolized.

Tap water and swimming pool water are chemically similar in basic composition. Swimming pool water is essentially treated tap water, with added chlorine and sometimes algaecides or stabilizers. However, even these additives do not leave behind unique or quantifiable residues in the body after death, especially over time. It is unlikely that any test, including gas chromatography or mass spectrometry, could differentiate between water from a bathtub and pool water after the body’s internal environment has begun to degrade.

In cases of drowning, water may be swallowed reflexively, leading to water being present in the stomach. However, this is not a definitive indicator of drowning, let alone of where the drowning occurred. Moreover, during decomposition, gases and fluids mix and shift between body compartments. This cross-contamination renders the chemical profile of stomach contents untrustworthy as evidence of the water’s origin.

Given the autopsy was conducted approximately one week after discovery, and considering the nature of decomposition, it may be scientifically implausible to determine with any certainty whether the girl drowned in a swimming pool or a bathtub based on the fluids in her lungs or stomach. We have been told that samples of the pool water were taken. But what use that would be is debatable given the decomposition of the body since death. It has also been stated the results of toxicology tests are being awaited. Those tests would most likely be concerned with body tissue and will be aimed at determining whether the deceased’s tissue had toxins or poisons or substances that that could have impaired her motor skills or consciousness.

As such, caution must be exercised in expecting a definitive finding in relation to the type of water found in the deceased’s body. That is not likely to yield any reliable results.

(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.)

---

---