Murder of Guylaine Potvin: the defense questions the limits of the autopsy carried out in 2000

The defense attacked on Wednesday the limits of the analysis that the pathologist responsible for explaining the causes of death and the injuries of Guylaine Potvin could do at the trial of Marc-André Grenon, since it was not she who carried out the autopsy 24 years ago.

• Read also: Trial of Marc-André Grenon: Guylaine Potvin’s numerous injuries explained to the jury

• Read also: Unable to link Grenon to prints found in victim’s apartment

As explained during her testimony Tuesday morning, the D^D Caroline Tanguay did not herself carry out the autopsy of the young woman murdered on April 28, 2000.

It was the pathologist Claude Pothel who carried out the analysis of the body at the time. The D^D Tanguay did not speak to her in preparation for her testimony, so her work as an expert is based solely on her colleague’s notes, his report, as well as the autopsy photos.

“So if the D^r Pothel is missing a detail, you, as of today, cannot note that it is missing,” the defense lawyer, Ms.^e Vanessa Pharand, what the D^D Tanguay had to acquiesce.

Same thing for the final report written seven months after the autopsy, a delay which “increases the chances of an oversight in what is collected” noted the defense.

Confident of the conclusions

Several findings aimed at highlighting the limits of the operation given the time that has elapsed since the initial autopsy followed during cross-examination by the defense:

• Pathological science has obviously evolved over the past 24 years.
• Comparison of exact injury measurements by photos alone is approximate.
• The histological slides used to analyze under the microscope the extent of the lesions in Guylaine Potvin’s tissues were not re-evaluated by the D^D Tanguay.
• The same goes for samples aimed at identifying sperm on the body.
• Some dissections, notably of the wrists and ankles, were not carried out.

Despite these facts, the pathologist insisted on having faith in the conclusions of her colleague Claude Pothel, conclusions which she endorses 24 years later.

“Personally, I do not think that the autopsy is limited in terms of the conclusions with the techniques that were used,” emphasized the D^D Tanguay, placing particular emphasis on the numerous samples taken during the autopsy, 14 in total.

Injuries

The defense also focused on Guylaine Potvin’s injuries, questioning the pathologist at length about their extent and possible causes. Regarding genital injuries, M^e Pharand notably asked the witness if the bleeding observed could result from the fact that Guylaine Potvin was in her menstrual period at the time of her death rather than from injuries.

“Yes it can come from there, but whether all the bloody secretions come from there is not for me to say,” explained the doctor, recalling that infiltrations of blood into the tissues showed wounds. .

Marc-André Grenon’s lawyer also insisted on the absence of injuries to the victim’s thighs, suggesting that “nothing indicates that the opening was forced [de ses] thighs”. M^e Pharand also raised the possibility that some of the injuries may date from before the attack or that the victim may have inflicted them on herself while fighting against her attacker.

Tuesday, during interrogation, the pathologist concluded that a combination of manual strangulation and strangulation by tie, possibly a belt, had caused the death of Guylaine Potvin.

Purse found at the sorting center

The testimony of the D^D Tanguay ended during the dinner break on Wednesday. The presentation of the next Crown witness will begin in the afternoon.

It was also admitted by the parties in the morning that a purse belonging to Guylaine Potvin had been found by an employee of a sorting center in the week following her death. Photos of its contents were shown to the jury.

A photo of the victim taken on her birthday a few weeks before the murder was also filed. We see a ring that the young woman was wearing at that time, but that she no longer had at the time of her autopsy.

These elements should be addressed in future testimony.