What type of evidence was used against Dr. Gil in relation to his autopsy practices?

In the context of investigations related to autopsy practices, video evidence serves as a compelling form of documentation that can vividly illustrate the actions of an individual, providing clear and tangible proof of their methods and techniques. In the case of Dr. Gil, video evidence would likely have captured his autopsy procedures, showcasing any inappropriate or unprofessional behavior directly. This leads to its weight in court, as it allows for an unfiltered view of the practices in question, which can be more impactful than other forms of evidence.

Photographic evidence, while useful, may not convey the full scope of the actions taken during an autopsy, as it is often static and may miss crucial context. Testimonies from other coroners can offer insights or opinions but are subjective and can vary in reliability based on personal bias or experiences. Medical records, although critical in establishing patient histories or procedural norms, do not visually depict the practices themselves and may not serve as direct evidence of wrongdoing in the manner that video evidence does. Therefore, video evidence stands out as a definitive and persuasive form of evidence in this scenario.