With the expanding use of different imaging approaches for medico-legal and forensic purposes, new methods have been introduced in postmortem investigations. These recent developments were greeted enthusiastically by some but with considerable skepticism by others. Different groups worldwide have started their own research projects using various imaging methods and published articles with varying amounts of data. A critical assessment of the existing literature allows the conclusion that in the beginning, mostly case reports and reports of first experiences were published concluding that basic scientific research was needed. The wide range of new terms introduced into the medico-legal and clinical literature led to confusion concerning the applied methods. Terms like necroradiology, necropsy, virtual autopsy, minimally invasive autopsy, and Virtopsy were used in articles, presentations, and discussions without proper clarification of which kind of imaging modality and which methodology was applied. At the time, it was hard to explain the advantage of a “necropsy,” for example, because it was unclear which techniques had been used to examine a body. To overcome the confusion, a growing number of scientists came to recognize the need for standardized terms [1] and basic scientific research. To bypass the classic limitations of small sample size in legal medicine, preplanned prospective studies and multicenter studies presented an alternative. Therefore, good connections and collaboration among research centers became necessary. For this reason and to harmonize the use of the new imaging modalities in forensic medicine, research groups and working groups were established in recent years, strengthening interdisciplinary, national and international collaboration. One of the first of these groups was the Technical Working Group Postmortem Angiography Methods (TWGPAM).