Open Access

Tamara Gelderman, Erik Stigter, Tristan Krap, Jens Amendt, Wilma Duijst

• Highlights • Forensic experts should be questioned about their education and experience. • Reliability of methods used to estimate the PMI should be evident when exposed in court. • Judges should question if the right method was used in the right manner. • The PMI is an estimate and cannot be interpreted as the actual time of death. Abstract When a capital crime is committed the post-mortem interval (PMI) is of particular importance in investigating a suspect’s alibi in court. A forensic expert can use different methods to estimate the PMI. This research focuses on who is considered an expert in court and whether the methods used to estimate the PMI are reliable. In this study, the methods used to estimate the PMI and the experts consulted, available in Dutch jurisprudence, in the period 2010–2019 were investigated. Ninety-four judicial cases were included and multiple experts and methods of estimating the PMI were found. As part of this study, the methods that were used to estimate the PMI in court were subjected to the Daubert criteria. Of these methods, only the Henssge nomogram and entomological methods met the Daubert criteria. However, the methods are only useful when applied by the right forensic expert and in the right manner. Unfortunately, this was not always the case.