Injury as a silent witness: forensic medicine’s role in the legal qualification of an explosive case

• The case demonstrates how injury analysis can refute a declared explosion dynamic and influence criminal charge determination and emphasizes the role of trauma patterns as “silent witnesses” in reconstructing event dynamics and supporting judicial reasoning. • The case reaffirms forensic traumatology’s foundational role in modern forensic medicine, especially when supported by imaging and expert collaboration. • Blast-related injuries were highly localized, suggesting close contact with a low-order IED rather than a distant, high-yield explosion. • The pattern of trauma contradicted initial claims and provided objective evidence of the victim’s posture at the time of detonation. The presence of pyrotechnic residues confirmed the nature of the device and its limited destructive potential. In forensic practice, the reconstruction of criminal behavior and charge determination are often entrusted solely to law enforcement, with forensic medicine playing a marginal, confirmatory role. Nonetheless, accurate injury analysis remains fundamental and, in specific contexts, may be decisive. The authors present a case that underscores the crucial role of interdisciplinary forensic collaboration − particularly between forensic pathologist and ballistics expert − in the reconstruction of the event dynamics and in supporting judicial decision-making aimed at the accurate charge determination of the event. On the shutter of a bookstore a ticking object wrapped in white cloth was discovered. A bomb disposal technician intervened to neutralize the device. During the operation, the device exploded, causing the amputation of the left hand, loss of the right eye and bilateral thigh lacerations with retained foreign bodies. The technician claimed the explosion occurred spontaneously. Based on this, charges included mass murder, considering the alleged explosive power. A multidisciplinary forensic analysis integrating crime scene investigation, injury pattern review, radiological imaging and explosive residue testing was conducted. A detailed injury analysis and technical assessment of the device disproved this version, redefining the victim’s position at the time of detonation and substantially reducing the inferred explosive capacity. This led to the reclassification of some criminal charges.