- Email: [email protected]
The role of forensic anthropology in Disaster Victim Identification (DVI)
Forensic Science International 205 (2011) 29–35
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Forensic Science International journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/forsciint
The role of forensic anthropology in Disaster Victim Identification (DVI)§ Soren Blau a,*, Christopher A. Briggs a,b a b
Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine and the Department of Forensic Medicine, Monash University, 57-83 Kavanagh St, Southbank, VIC 3006, Australia Department of Anatomy & Cell Biology, University of Melbourne, 3010, Australia
A R T I C L E I N F O
A B S T R A C T
Article history: Received 22 April 2010 Received in revised form 27 July 2010 Accepted 28 July 2010 Available online 24 August 2010
This paper briefly describes Disaster Victim Identification (DVI) and reviews the history of the use of forensic anthropology in the identification process. The potential contributions made by forensic anthropology are illustrated through the presentation of a case study. In February 2009 the state of Victoria in south-eastern Australia experienced the most devastating bushfires in its history, resulting in catastrophic loss of life and public and private property. Within 48 h of the disaster, forensic teams including pathologists, odontologists and anthropologists assembled at the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine in Melbourne to begin the task of identifying the deceased. This paper reviews the part played by forensic anthropologists in the identification process and outlines the important contribution anthropologists can make to DVI, especially at the scene, in the mortuary and in the reconciliation process. The anthropologist’s experience with differentially preserved human remains meant they played an important role identifying and recovering heavily fragmentary human skeletal remains, differentiating human from non-human remains, establishing basic biological information such as the sex and age of the individuals and confirming or denying the possibility of re-associating body parts for release to families. Crown Copyright ß 2010 Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Forensic anthropology DVI Disasters Identification
1. Introduction The extreme weather conditions in Victoria, Australia leading up to and on the 7th February 2009 resulted in the deaths of 173 people. A range of forensic medical and science experts were required to manage the search, location and analysis of the human remains in an attempt to positively identify individuals. The aim of this paper is to examine the role of forensic anthropology in a DVI process and discuss the contributions this discipline made to the February 2009 Bushfire investigations. In highlighting the contributions and limitations made by forensic anthropology to DVI the paper will serve to broaden the educational awareness about forensic anthropology for police, coroners, lawyers, emergency workers and others involved in the DVI process.
2. What is DVI? Disaster Victim Identification (DVI) refers to the procedures used to positively identify deceased victims of a multiple casualty
§ ‘‘Forensic medical response to the 2009 Victorian Bushfires Disaster’’, Guestedited by Olaf H. Drummer and Stephen M. Cordner. * Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 3 9684 4469; fax: +61 3 9682 7353. E-mail address: [email protected] (S. Blau).
event. The DVI procedures consist of five phases: Phase 1: the scene; Phase 2: the mortuary; Phase 3: ante-mortem data collection; Phase 4: reconciliation and Phase 5: debrief. These phases cover the time directly following the disaster and up to the identification of the deceased. See [1] for a review of each of the five DVI phases. 3. History of forensic anthropology in DVI Forensic anthropology is defined as the field of study concerned with the examination of material believed to be human to answer medico-legal questions including those related to identification. While there has been much written on the role of the forensic pathologist and odontologist in Disaster Victim Identification (DVI) [2], Stewart’s edited volume Personal Identification in Mass Disasters is the first account of the role of a forensic anthropologist in the management of multiple deceased following a disaster [3]. Since this time, there has been an increased recognition of the role the anthropologist can play in the multidisciplinary effort that is required to identify disaster victims [4,5]. For example, in North America where institutions such as The Armed Forces Institute of Pathology and the Disaster Mortuary Teams of the Public Health Service employ forensic anthropologists [6,7] in Australia where the Australasian Disaster Victim Identification manual includes protocols for anthropologists [8]; and in the UK, where anatomy,
0379-0738/$ – see front matter . Crown Copyright ß 2010 Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2010.07.038
30
S. Blau, C.A. Briggs / Forensic Science International 205 (2011) 29–35
forensic anthropology and DVI are brought together as part of training for the UK National Disaster Victim Identification (UK DVI) team [9,10]. Criticism has been made of responses to mass disasters, such as the Asian tsunami, which failed to incorporate a forensic anthropologist [4]. In addition to the significant contributions made by forensic anthropologists to investigations of human rights violations [11– 13] the skills of forensic anthropologists (see below) have been used in the examination of a range of different scale disasters including light plane accidents [14] train crashes [15]; sieges [5], large scale terrorist attacks such as the 2001 World Trade Center disaster [16–18] and the Bali Bombings [19], as well as natural disasters such as hurricanes [20] and bushfires (see below).
gist may also play an important role in identifying the spatialtemporal relationships between the bodies and associated evidence, including the body position and in determining the numbers of individuals present [5,25]. Establishing whether there is more than one individual present and if the remains are commingled is important for the recovery process. 4.2. Phase 2: mortuary The role of the forensic anthropologist and his/her contribution to the mortuary phase will depend on the preservation of the deceased. When forensic anthropologists have assisted in the investigation of mass disasters, they have been critical in a range of analyses [16,26,27] including:
4. The role of a forensic anthropologist in a DVI Whether a result of human or natural circumstances, a disaster is likely to involve a range of extreme forces such as heat (burning), impact (G-force, wave), crushing (structure collapse), explosion, freefall (impact) and/or environmental influences (temperature; humidity; water—warm, cold, salt, fresh; carnivore/rodent activity) that all potentially impact on the condition of the body. Consequently, disasters resulting in mass fatalities commonly present a range of ‘‘differentially preserved remains that may include bodies and/or body parts that are: intact, fairly intact, decomposed, fragmentary, commingled, burned or cremated; partially burnt, distorted, buried or a combination of several of these states of preservation’’ [21] (see also [2]). Practitioners involved in the location, recovery and analysis of deceased individuals following a disaster must, therefore, have expertise not only in human anatomy but the taphonomic and diagenetic processes of different variables (including burial, fire, sun, salt, etc.) and the associated impact on the human body [22]. As part of routine casework, the forensic anthropologist commonly examines remains in varying states of preservation: skeletonised (with or without associated decomposing soft tissue, which is sometimes mummified); burned or otherwise damaged or altered including dismembered, or a combination of these conditions. The forensic anthropologist’s experience dealing with a range of differentially preserved skeletal remains means that they may also play a role in assisting in the DVI process [23], specifically in Phases 1 (the scene), 2 (the mortuary) and 4 (reconciliation). Involvement in Phase 3 (ante-mortem data collection) is, however, a regular feature of the forensic anthropologist’s role in human rights and post-conflict forensic investigations.
separation of osseous from non-osseous material (potentially done in the field and/or the mortuary); separation of human from non-human and non-bone material; (anthropologists were required to distinguish human from nonhuman remains in the New York September 11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre where many restaurants were located in the area of the destruction); separation of recognizable vs. non-recognizable fragments that require DNA analysis; (retrieval and identification of soft tissue fragments in the 2002 Bali incident, especially from individuals thought to be at the epicentre of the explosion, contributed to the identification of many of the deceased); separation of commingled remains; analysis of small fragments of bone from any region in the body; siding to left and right of skeletal fragments; analysis of cross-sections of bone in soft tissue masses; analysis of incinerated remains with no soft tissue; Evaluation of the above enables the forensic anthropologist to: determine the minimum numbers of individuals present, establish a biological profile (ancestry, sex, age, and/or stature) of those individuals, and provide an opinion on ante-, peri- and post-mortem trauma.
5. The forensic anthropologist and DVI in an Australian context: Bushfire case study 5.1. Phase 1: the scene
4.1. Phase 1: scene While there are comments in the literature that ‘‘forensic pathologists and anthropologists are not involved in the crime scene investigation; their activity is confined to the institute premises’’ [24], the benefits of including both anthropologists and pathologists at the scene are now well understood. Depending on the type of disaster and associated levels of preservation, the forensic anthropologist may assist at the scene first by identifying the presence of skeletal remains. While police have the core responsibility for Phase 1 responses, the presence of forensic anthropologists experienced in differential preservation working at disaster scenes is important to ensure remains that might otherwise be unrecognizable and therefore overlooked are identified, collected and made available for further examination. In the absence of this expertise the potential loss of evidence may impact on later phases of the process, especially the reconstruction of peri- and post-mortem events. Once skeletal remains have been located the forensic anthropologist can assist in determining whether the remains are in fact human. The forensic anthropolo-
Initial reports of numbers of individuals killed during the 7th February 2009 Victorian bushfires (referred to as the Black Saturday fires) were conflicting with figures ranging from 14 to 3000 deaths, more than 3000 properties lost, 7000 people displaced and several towns completely destroyed (Trevor Blake, DVI CBR Police Unit, Personal Communication 2009). In less than 48 h following the most devastating fires in Australia’s history multidisciplinary teams including police, pathologists, anthropologists, odontologists, mortuary scientific and technical staff, photographers and scribes assembled from throughout the state and beyond and commenced examinations of the deceased in the mortuary at the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine (VIFM). Ideally attendance of forensic anthropologist at the scene would have occurred in the days immediately following the Victorian disaster. However, in the case of the 2009 Victorian Bushfires Disaster there were 145 disparate scenes spread over an area of approximately 4000 hectares (over 1 million acres, or more than 1500 square miles) which meant there were multiple DVI’s at one time (Fig. 1). Much of the state was still burning and in addition,
[(Fig._1)TD$IG]
S. Blau, C.A. Briggs / Forensic Science International 205 (2011) 29–35
31
5.2. Phase 2: the mortuary
Fig. 1. Map illustrating the widespread location of the fires and associated numbers of fatalities (Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Feb_7_09_vic_bushfires_ map.PNG).
there were allegations that some fires had been intentionally lit, thus all sites had to be investigated as potential crime scenes. The coordination of resources has been described as ‘‘one of the most challenging aspects of mass disaster scene processing’’ [27]. Although there were numerous calls from police requesting the presence of an anthropologist at scenes, provision of expertise in the mortuary was given a higher priority, particularly in the early stages when the total death toll was being reconfigured on a daily basis and few anthropologists were available. Unlike medico-legal institutions in countries such as the United States which employ numerous forensic anthropologists [28] there are relatively few practicing forensic anthropologists in Australia [29]. The situation immediately following the 2009 Victorian Bushfires Disaster was made more difficult by the fact that three of the most experienced forensic anthropologists were deployed overseas engaged in work related activities. One of the briefs of the VIFM is to support the international development of forensic medical/science services and to this end one of these anthropologists was coordinating a Disaster Victim Identification course in Nepal while another was involved in the exhumation of human remains from a World War 2 plane crash in Papua New Guinea. Therefore, because of the need to maximize resources in the first week a protocol was quickly established in which it was decided an anthropologist would not attend all primary scenes but would instead be based in the mortuary. Some primary scenes that had not been completely investigated by the police were visited by multidisciplinary disaster teams, including an anthropologist, pathologist and dentist, at the beginning of the second week when the pool of available anthropologists had increased. Because of the huge scale of the fires and the multiple-scenes (which included 1886 destroyed homes and 760 destroyed vehicles) as well as the inability in the first days to obtain a definitive number of missing, within a week the Coroner issued a ‘‘Restricted Access Order’’ on the six main fire burn areas, which required destroyed and partly destroyed structures to be searched for possible human remains, that each scene should be re-visited and no sites should be cleared or interfered with until police and specialists were certain all remains had been recovered. A total of 86 re-visits were made, all of which included an anthropologist as part of the multidisciplinary investigation team. These re-visits continued until early March, more than a month after the fires started, and a total of 56 additional DVI numbers were generated as a result.
The fire-affected areas included not only bush land but also heavily populated centers. Consequently, there were vast numbers of completely and partially destroyed buildings, burnt-out vehicles, and livestock and native animals killed by the fire. While the temperatures of the Black Saturday fires were comparable to or exceeded those reached during a cremation (c. 1000 8C), what was remarkable was the length of time at which the fires burned at these or even higher temperatures. Unlike human remains in a modern crematorium, which are subjected to intense heat for approximately 1 h, after 4–5 h the bushfires were still burning and even after 24 h, temperatures recorded on some bodies were still 600–700 8C (John Callaher, Arson Investigation Forensic Science Centre personal communication 22/06/09) (see also [30] for discussion on the effects on bone of time, temperature and oxygen availably). In visiting one of the areas more than a week after the fires, an investigation team found burning embers under animal remains at the entrance to a site and at another site the floor of the destroyed house was still too hot to kneel on. These consistently high temperatures, combined with the duration of burning, had a significant impact on the preservation of the remains. 5.3. Preservation of remains As observed in many DVI situations [5] human remains recovered from the bushfires scenes were significantly differentially preserved and included relatively complete bodies, carbonized body parts (especially the large muscle masses of the back and thighs), identifiable carbonized soft tissue blocks including heart and lungs, as well as fully skeletonised remains. While some skeletal elements were relatively intact others were heavily burnt, often calcined, fragmentary and fragile (Fig. 2). Bones that commonly survived and were subsequently available for identification included vertebrae, heads of radii, articular surfaces of proximal aspects of femora and tibiae, as well as patellae and tali. Why the head of the femur should survive is understandable given it is deeply located within the large muscle mass of the proximal thigh, however survivability of the head of the radius is more difficult to explain and contrary to findings elsewhere [5,31]. Carbonised remains were found in close proximity to calcined elements, probably influenced by the thickness of subcutaneous tissue and body position in addition to proximity to the fire. The upper limbs commonly presented the ‘‘pugilistic’’ posture seen in severe fire-affected victims with related fractures of the mid-shaft of the radius and ulna. Distal segments of the lower limbs were also severely incinerated often with related fractures of the tibia and fibula. However, a high percentage of major joint complexes, particularly the hip, were often intact and once opened up had measurable articular surfaces. 5.4. Examination of remains The role of the forensic anthropologist in a DVI is no different to that in routine casework (see above). However, in order to deal with large numbers of differentially preserved remains, it is necessary to be able to quickly identify fragments which provide the most useful information for personal identification. In the case of the 2009 Victorian Bushfires Disaster, anthropologists worked closely with pathologists and odontologists analyzing differentially burnt and fragmentary remains and frequently re-visiting their initial estimates of sex and age when new information came to light. Over the duration of the DVI process forensic anthropologists examined 175 cases. Each case consisted of a body bag with a unique DVI number, which may have contained anything from a fragment of non-human bone to commingled human remains. In
[(Fig._2)TD$IG]
32
S. Blau, C.A. Briggs / Forensic Science International 205 (2011) 29–35
watches, mobile phones, prostheses as well as skeletal elements including articular surfaces The forensic anthropologist worked closely with the consultant radiologist in interpreting images, commenting on, for example, numbers of individuals, and the presence/absence of metallic artifacts, teeth, etc. [32]. It is well established that ‘‘[b]urning can make many objects look like bone that are not even biological in nature’’ [33]. In some cases the anthropologist had to differentiate non-osseous from osseous material. Building materials such as floor tiles were burnt to the extent that they resembled cranial elements and glues mimicked the morphology of dentition (Fig. 3). Because of the inability of forensic anthropologists to attend all scenes, photographs taken by police at the scene/s of skeletal remains suspected to be human were sent via a secure website to the VIFM. This allowed the anthropologists to quickly determine whether the remains were human or non-human. This innovation proved to be an extremely efficient way of spreading a thin resource over a wide area. In some cases the determination of the minimum numbers of individuals was straight forward, for example, where the torso of an 8-month-old child was commingled with fragments of an adult. In the majority of cases, however, where there was significant fragmentation of heavily burnt remains, the experience of the anthropologists in distinguishing differentially preserved remains to identify bony landmarks for individualization was essential. For example, in one case the shape and size of the articular surfaces of the tibial plateau was the only means of determining two left tibia and hence two individuals. Fig. 2. Differential preservation: (a) relatively intact skeletal elements and (b) heavily fragmentary skeletal remains.
5.5. Biological profiles
addition, the forensic anthropologists had to re-examine the remains on several occasions especially in relation to those with multiple deceased. The scenario was further complicated (and the overall DVI process considerably lengthened) by the fact that 31 cases were commingled on presentation to the mortuary and eight sets of remains were found to be non-human. As part of the normal VIFM protocol, all cases admitted to the mortuary were CT-scanned using a Toshiba AquilionTM 16 multidetector CT scanner. The utility of a CT scanner in a DVI situation has been highlighted in a domestic DVI context [4] but this was the first time it had been used in a disaster of this magnitude. The consultant radiologist viewed all cases prior to identification commencing in the mortuary and prepared a brief report which indicated the presence of metallic objects such as jewellery,
Standard anthropological techniques for determining a biological profile are well established [34,35]. However, in the case of mass fatalities involving a large number of differentially preserved, often heavily disrupted human remains, some techniques will be more useful than others. A major contribution from the anthropologist to the DVI process is the skill of being able to locate and identify in a timely manner the most relevant anatomical landmarks that may provide information about ancestry, sex, age and/or stature (Table 1). While such information will obviously not positively identify the individual, it facilitates a triaging process for other practitioners such as the pathologist and odontologists to then make their contributions. In the Victorian bushfires cases, ancestry and stature were not seen as important criteria for narrowing the window of possible
[(Fig._3)TD$IG]
Fig. 3. Building materials that mimicked burnt (a) human cranium and (b) dentition.
S. Blau, C.A. Briggs / Forensic Science International 205 (2011) 29–35
33
Table 1 Some of the more useful anatomical features for the estimation of ancestry, sex, age and stature in fragmentary human skeletal remains. Skeletal element
Anatomical features
Ancestry
Sex
Age
Stature
Cranium
Nasion morphology Glabella Occipital nuchal crest Mastoid process Supra orbital margin Zygomatic (suprameatal crest) Sphenooccipital synchondrosis Nasal aperture (sill) Shovel-shaped incisors Maxillary dentition Ramus (gonion angle) Mental eminence Mandibular dentition Presence of osteophytes Presence of ventral rings Pubis (pubic symphysis, subpubic angle; size) Ischio-pubic ramus Greater sciatic notch Pre-auricular surface Sacrum Proximal femur Distal femur Proximal tibia Distal tibia Proximal humerus Distal humerus Proximal radius Medial clavicle Sternal end
Yes – – – – – – Yes Yes – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
– Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes – – – – Yes Yes – – – Yes Yes Yes
– – – – – – Yes – – Yes – – Yes Yes Yes Yes – – Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes – – –
Maxilla
Mandible
Vertebra Pelvis
Sacrum Femur Tibia Humerus Radius Clavicle Ribs
identification with the focus being on sex and age. Although ancestry has been estimated in disaster contexts (e.g., [5]), the analysis is often controversial [36]. Given the remains were relatively poorly preserved and we were working in the context of a multi-cultural country, ancestry data was not seen as a useful variable for narrowing the range of possibilities for identification. While it is possible to estimate the stature of an individual from fragmentary human skeletal remains [37,38], height in living people is rarely or accurately recorded in Australia. Consequently, although stature has been seen as an important marker of personal identification [39], such estimates were not deemed useful in the investigation of identification of victims of the Victorian bushfires. Although the condition of the remains in the Victorian bushfire cases varied from carbonized to calcined it was generally feasible to estimate sex and to provide a guide as to age. Age estimation was always easier with juvenile or children’s remains. A significant complicating factor, however, was commingling at properties where there were multiple deaths. At one scene the remains of nine individuals, four adults and five children, were recovered from a destroyed house. From the original scene visits there was estimated to be as much as 90% of some individuals remaining, between 25 and 50% of others and in some cases less than 25% of the individuals survived. There was considerable commingling between the nine individuals with the possibility of non-human remains as well (dogs were known to have been in the house). From the information provided, one of the deceased was thought to be a young child. However four other older juveniles were also suspected of having died in the property. Although the remains were significantly commingled it was possible to distinguish several child lumbar vertebrae on evidence of markings (in the form of radiating lines) of the annular epiphyses. Several of these vertebrae were considerably smaller than the others and were attributed to the 5-year-old (there was no supporting DNA evidence). In one case a bra under wire was found (and identified as such on the CT images), indicating a female and there was evidence of an
Yes Yes – – – Yes – Yes – –
unfused proximal femoral epiphysis. The femoral head was able to be measured suggesting female, although sex determination is notoriously unreliable in juveniles. Additional commingled remains recovered from this site included two fused upper lumbar vertebrae with loss of the intervening disc space. The vertebrae showed no evidence of surgical fixation and on first examination it was thought osteophytic bony bars may have lead to the fusion. One of the missing persons was thought to be an elderly male, a neighbor who had retreated to the property when his own home was threatened. Medical records were sought but were unable to shed any light on a possible surgical fusion. However the son of the deceased remembered that his father had injured his back many years earlier and may have had surgery to address the damage. One unexpected find occurred during a scene re-visit to a property which had been destroyed by the fire. In removing sheets of galvanized iron, army personnel had come across skeletal material in a corner of a room, close to where a window ledge had previously been located. The anthropologist confirmed the remains were human and part of a skull. Careful excavation of the surrounding area revealed additional fragments of skull bones, with partial mandible containing some teeth. The entire room was subsequently searched for additional skeletal elements, in particular post-cranial remains; building materials were sifted and the search extended to the outside of the window in the unlikely event of disturbance when fire brigade personnel attended the scene. However, no evidence of additional bones could be found and the search was called off after several hours. Information relating to the incomplete nature of the scene was conveyed to the DVI Commander who subsequently contacted members of the family. It transpired the owner had been looking after a skull belonging to a local doctor and had left it on the window ledge in his study! The skull had presumably become dislodged when the house burnt down and was buried under the
34
S. Blau, C.A. Briggs / Forensic Science International 205 (2011) 29–35
rubble. Interestingly none of the skeletal elements, ramus of the mandible or temporal bones, had evidence of screws or hooks that might have held the calvarium in place, common clues that such finds were part of a teaching collection. 5.6. Pathology review Anthropological input to identification continued long after all remains had been examined in the mortuary. Pathology reviews took place as briefs were assembled by the police for presentation to the Identification Board chaired by the Coroner. In cases were commingling had occurred scene photographs were scrutinized as were details on the DVI pink forms in an attempt to confirm the position of each individual. Where doubts were raised the anthropologist routinely returned to the mortuary to re-examine the contents of body bags. 5.7. Logistical issues There were a number of occupational health and safety issues that had to be dealt with prior to working at a scene. In addition to assessing the integrity of walls in destroyed houses and having to work on floor surfaces that were still extremely hot, some of the scenes were contaminated by asbestos. None of the anthropologists had previous experience working in such conditions but were professionally guided by the relevant agency (e.g. fire authorities and police DVI personnel) in working both at the scene and in the mortuary in the appropriate personal protective clothing. Further, some of the DVI teams stayed overnight when doing re-visits therefore accommodation needed to be provided in areas that had been devastated by the bushfires. 5.8. Phase 4 Forensic anthropologists provided information at the pathology reviews to assist in confirming or denying the possibility of reassociating body parts for release to families. This consisted of individual case reviews incorporating consideration of scene photographs, pink Interpol DVI post-mortem forms and pathologists’ and radiologists’ reports. The anthropologist had not provided an independent report at the initial mortuary examination and in the subsequent debrief this was considered a significant omission. The utility of separate anthropology reports in DVI contexts is important not only for immediate cases reviews but also for future analyses of the data in order to attempt improve anthropology techniques [5,40]. Reassessments of diagrams drawn at the scene by the DVI police officer were particularly helpful in cases of commingling. As new information came to light, particularly from the odontologists and from ante-mortem materials, the anthropologist was required to re-examine body bags, predominantly in cases where there were multiple commingled deceased to separate individuals as far as possible, where families had indicated a desire for this to occur. 6. Conclusion Despite increased acknowledgement of the role forensic anthropologists can play in DVI, there remains room for improvement. For example, lessons learnt from forensic anthropologists involved in large scale disasters such as the Boxing Day 2005 tsunami and the 2009 Victorian bushfires include the need for anthropology protocols in the INTERPOL forms and entry of physical anthropology data in the DVI Sys1, Plassdata (a database which stores and compares data to assist with the identification process) [41].
While it has been argued that forensic anthropology in DVI situations has been under-utilized [20], over the past 20 years the medico-legal community has increasingly embraced forensic anthropology [42]. Depending on the type of disaster and the level of preservation of the deceased person/s, the specific role of the forensic anthropologist in the DVI process will change. The 2009 Victorian bushfires have highlighted the need to always consider including a forensic anthropologist as part of the multidisciplinary team managing a DVI. It was shown that the anthropologist can play a crucial role in narrowing the initial search and provide key information directing the pathologist (who may have limited experience of differentially burnt skeletal elements) to the right conclusions with regards to the sex and age of the deceased. In addition, the anthropologist’s knowledge and experience in separating human from non-human remains as well as left and right elements greatly assisted in the determination of the minimum number of individuals at a scene and significantly reduced the overall time taken to finalize identification. Acknowledgements The authors are grateful for comments provided by Luis Fondebrider (EAAF) and two anonymous reviewers. References [1] S. Blau, A. Hill, Disaster Victim Identification: a review, Minerva Medicolegale 129 (2009) 35–46. [2] D. Cristina Cattaneo, d.A. Marco Grandi, Mass disasters, in: E.C. Aurore Schmitt, Joao Pinheiro (Eds.), Forensic Anthropology and Medicine: Complementary Sciences from Recovery to Cause of Death, Human Press, New Jersey, 2006, pp. 431–443. [3] T.D. Stewart, in: T.D. Stewart (Ed.), Personal Identification in Mass Disasters, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, 1970. [4] T. Kahana, J. Hiss, The role of forensic anthropology in mass fatality incidents management, Forensic Science Policy and Management: An International Journal 1 (3) (2009) 144–149. [5] D.H. Ubelaker, et al., The role of forensic anthropology in the recovery and analysis of Branch Davidian Compound victims: recovery procedures and characteristics of the victims, Journal of Forensic Science 40 (3) (1995) 335–340. [6] P. Sledzik, Federal resources in mass disaster response, Cultural Resource Management 10 (1996) 19–20. [7] M.J. Hinkes, The role of a forensic anthropologist in mass disaster resolution, Aviation Space Environment Medicine 60 (1989) A60–A63. [8] A. Buck, DVI forensic anthropology procedures (Appendix K), in: Australian DVI Standards Manual, Emergency Management Australia and the Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, 2004. [9] J. Hunter, Domestic homicide investigation in the United Kingdom, in: S. Blau, D.H. Ubelaker (Eds.), Handbook of Forensic Anthropology, Left Coast Press, California, 2009, pp. 374–387. [10] S. Black, Disaster anthropology, in: S. Blau, D.H. Ubelaker (Eds.), Handbook of Forensic Anthropology, Left Coast Press, California, 2009, pp. 397–406. [11] M. Doretti, L. Fondebrider, Science and human rights—truth, justice, reparation and reconciliation: a long way in third world countries, in: V. Buchli, L. Gavin (Eds.), Archaeologies of the Contemporary Past, Routledge, London, 2001, pp. 138–144. [12] M. Doretti, C.C. Snow, Forensic anthropology and human rights: The Argentine experience, in: D.W. Steadman (Ed.), Hard Evidence: Case Studies in Forensic Anthropology, Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 2003, pp. 290–310. [13] J.E.B. Debra Komar, Forensic Anthropology: Contemporary Theory and Practice., Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2008. [14] S. Blau, S. Robertson, M. Johnstone, Disaster victim identification: new applications for postmortem computed tomography, Journal of Forensic Science 53 (4) (2008) 956–961. [15] S.U. Stratton, O.B. Beattie, Mass disasters: comments and discussion regarding the Hinton Train Collision of 1986, in: S.J. Fairgrieve (Ed.), Forensic Osteological Analysis, Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, 1999, pp. 267–286. [16] P. Sledzik, et al., Disaster victim recovery and identification: forensic anthropology in the aftermath of September 11th, in: D.W. Steadman (Ed.), Hard Evidence: Case Studies in Forensic Anthropology, 2nd ed., Prentice Hall, 2009. [17] A.Z. Mundorff, Anthropologist directed triage: three distinct mass fatality events involving fragmentation of human remains, in: B.J. Adams, J.E. Byrd (Eds.), Recovery, Analysis, and Identification of Commingled Human Remains, Humana Press, Totowa, NJ, 2008, pp. 123–144. [18] G. Mackinnon, A.Z. Mundorff, The World Trade Center–September 11, 2001, in: T.J.U. Thompson, S.M. Black (Eds.), Forensic Human Identification: An Introduction, CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2007, pp. 485–499.
S. Blau, C.A. Briggs / Forensic Science International 205 (2011) 29–35 [19] C. Briggs, A. Buck, The role of the anthropologist in Disaster Victim Identification: the Bali incidents 2002 and 2004, in: S. Blau, D.H. Ubelaker (Eds.), Handbook of Forensic Anthropology, Left Coast Press, California, 2009, pp. 407–415. [20] D.C. Dirkmaat, Anthropology response to Hurricane Katrina, Proceedings of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences (2006). [21] S. Blau, Forensic anthropology and its contributions to police investigations, Australian Police Journal 63 (1) (2009) 4–14. [22] F.P. Saul, J.M. Saul, Planes, trains, and fireworks: the evolving role of the forensic anthropologist in mass fatality incidents, in: D.W. Steadman (Ed.), Hard Evidence: Case Studies in Forensic Anthropology, Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 2009,pp. 266–277. [23] T. Kahana, M. Freund, J. Hiss, Suicidal terrorist bombings in Israel–identification of human remains, Journal of Forensic Sciences 42 (1997) 259–263. [24] S.I. Fairgrieve, Forensic Cremation: Recovery and Analysis, CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2008. [25] R.W. Byard, J.A. Ross, J. Zuccollo, Potential confusion arising from material presenting as possible human remains, The American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology 4 (2001) 391–394. [26] A.Z. Mundorff, Urban anthropology, case studies from the New York City Medical Examiner’s Office, in: D.W. Steadman (Ed.), Hard Evidence: Case Studies in Forensic Anthropology, Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 2003, pp. 52–62. [27] D.W. Owsley, et al., The role of forensic anthropology in the recovery and analysis of Branch Davidian compound victims: techniques of analysis, Journal of Forensic Sciences 40 (1995) 341–348. [28] R. Pickering, D. Bachman, The Use of Forensic Anthropology, CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2009. [29] D. Donlon, The development and current state of forensic anthropology: an Australian perspective, in: S. Blau, D.H. Ubelaker (Eds.), Handbook of Forensic Anthropology, Left Coast Press, California, 2009, pp. 104–114. [30] P.L. Walker, K.W.P. Miller, R. Richmand, Time, temperature, and oxygen availability: an experimental study of the effects of environmental conditions on the color and organic content of cremated bone, in: C.W. Schmidt, S.A. Symes (Eds.), The Analysis of Burned Human Remains, Academic Press, London, 2008, pp. 129–136.
35
[31] S.A. Symes, et al., Patterned thermal destruction of human remains in a forensic setting, in: C.W. Schmidt, S.A. Symes (Eds.), The Analysis of Burned Human Remains, Academic Press, London, 2008. [32] C. O’Donnell, et al., Contribution of postmortem multidetector CT scanning to identification of the deceased in a mass disaster: experience gained from the 2009 Victorian bushfires, Forensic Sciences International 205 (2011) 15–28. [33] C. Schmidt, S. Symes, in: C. Schmidt, S. Symes (Eds.), Preface in the analysis of burned human remains, Academic Press, London, 2008. [34] T. Simmons, W. Haglund, Anthropology in a forensic context, in: J. Hunter, M. Cox (Eds.), Forensic Archaeology: Advances in Theory and Practice, Routledge, London, 2005, pp. 159–176. [35] D.H.U. Jane Buikstra, Standards for Data Collection from Human Skeletal Remains, vol. 44, Arkansas Archaeological Survey, Arkansas, 1994. [36] I. Tattersall, Race: scientific nonproblem cultural quagmire, The Anatomical Record 278B (2004) 23–26. [37] D.G.a.M.T.W. Steele, A method for assessment of maximum long bone length and living stature from fragmentary long bones, American Journal of Physical Anthropology 31 (2) (1969) 215–227. [38] T. Simmons, R.L. Jantz, W.M. Bass, Stature estimation from fragmentary femora: a revision of the Steele method, Journal of Forensic Science 35 (3) (1990) 628– 636. [39] J.K. Littleton, R. Kinaston, Ancestry, age, sex and stature: identification in a diverse space, in forensic approaches to death, in: M. Oxenham (Ed.), Disaster and Abuse, Australian Academic Press, Queensland, 2009, pp. 155–176. [40] D.W. Owsley, et al., The role of forensic anthropology in the recovery and analysis of Branch Davidian Compound victims: techniques of analysis, Journal of Forensic Science 40 (3) (1995) 341–348. [41] J.E. Buikstra, D.H. Ubelaker, Standards for Data Collection from Human Skeletal Remains, in: Proceedings of the Seminar at the Field Museum of Natural History, Arkansas Archaeological Survey Research Series, 1994. [42] K. Kieser, Silence of the limbs—reinventing forensic anthropology, HOMO—Journal of Comparative Human Biology 60 (2009) 239–290.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Forensic Science International journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/forsciint
The role of forensic anthropology in Disaster Victim Identification (DVI)§ Soren Blau a,*, Christopher A. Briggs a,b a b
Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine and the Department of Forensic Medicine, Monash University, 57-83 Kavanagh St, Southbank, VIC 3006, Australia Department of Anatomy & Cell Biology, University of Melbourne, 3010, Australia
A R T I C L E I N F O
A B S T R A C T
Article history: Received 22 April 2010 Received in revised form 27 July 2010 Accepted 28 July 2010 Available online 24 August 2010
This paper briefly describes Disaster Victim Identification (DVI) and reviews the history of the use of forensic anthropology in the identification process. The potential contributions made by forensic anthropology are illustrated through the presentation of a case study. In February 2009 the state of Victoria in south-eastern Australia experienced the most devastating bushfires in its history, resulting in catastrophic loss of life and public and private property. Within 48 h of the disaster, forensic teams including pathologists, odontologists and anthropologists assembled at the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine in Melbourne to begin the task of identifying the deceased. This paper reviews the part played by forensic anthropologists in the identification process and outlines the important contribution anthropologists can make to DVI, especially at the scene, in the mortuary and in the reconciliation process. The anthropologist’s experience with differentially preserved human remains meant they played an important role identifying and recovering heavily fragmentary human skeletal remains, differentiating human from non-human remains, establishing basic biological information such as the sex and age of the individuals and confirming or denying the possibility of re-associating body parts for release to families. Crown Copyright ß 2010 Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Forensic anthropology DVI Disasters Identification
1. Introduction The extreme weather conditions in Victoria, Australia leading up to and on the 7th February 2009 resulted in the deaths of 173 people. A range of forensic medical and science experts were required to manage the search, location and analysis of the human remains in an attempt to positively identify individuals. The aim of this paper is to examine the role of forensic anthropology in a DVI process and discuss the contributions this discipline made to the February 2009 Bushfire investigations. In highlighting the contributions and limitations made by forensic anthropology to DVI the paper will serve to broaden the educational awareness about forensic anthropology for police, coroners, lawyers, emergency workers and others involved in the DVI process.
2. What is DVI? Disaster Victim Identification (DVI) refers to the procedures used to positively identify deceased victims of a multiple casualty
§ ‘‘Forensic medical response to the 2009 Victorian Bushfires Disaster’’, Guestedited by Olaf H. Drummer and Stephen M. Cordner. * Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 3 9684 4469; fax: +61 3 9682 7353. E-mail address: [email protected] (S. Blau).
event. The DVI procedures consist of five phases: Phase 1: the scene; Phase 2: the mortuary; Phase 3: ante-mortem data collection; Phase 4: reconciliation and Phase 5: debrief. These phases cover the time directly following the disaster and up to the identification of the deceased. See [1] for a review of each of the five DVI phases. 3. History of forensic anthropology in DVI Forensic anthropology is defined as the field of study concerned with the examination of material believed to be human to answer medico-legal questions including those related to identification. While there has been much written on the role of the forensic pathologist and odontologist in Disaster Victim Identification (DVI) [2], Stewart’s edited volume Personal Identification in Mass Disasters is the first account of the role of a forensic anthropologist in the management of multiple deceased following a disaster [3]. Since this time, there has been an increased recognition of the role the anthropologist can play in the multidisciplinary effort that is required to identify disaster victims [4,5]. For example, in North America where institutions such as The Armed Forces Institute of Pathology and the Disaster Mortuary Teams of the Public Health Service employ forensic anthropologists [6,7] in Australia where the Australasian Disaster Victim Identification manual includes protocols for anthropologists [8]; and in the UK, where anatomy,
0379-0738/$ – see front matter . Crown Copyright ß 2010 Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2010.07.038
30
S. Blau, C.A. Briggs / Forensic Science International 205 (2011) 29–35
forensic anthropology and DVI are brought together as part of training for the UK National Disaster Victim Identification (UK DVI) team [9,10]. Criticism has been made of responses to mass disasters, such as the Asian tsunami, which failed to incorporate a forensic anthropologist [4]. In addition to the significant contributions made by forensic anthropologists to investigations of human rights violations [11– 13] the skills of forensic anthropologists (see below) have been used in the examination of a range of different scale disasters including light plane accidents [14] train crashes [15]; sieges [5], large scale terrorist attacks such as the 2001 World Trade Center disaster [16–18] and the Bali Bombings [19], as well as natural disasters such as hurricanes [20] and bushfires (see below).
gist may also play an important role in identifying the spatialtemporal relationships between the bodies and associated evidence, including the body position and in determining the numbers of individuals present [5,25]. Establishing whether there is more than one individual present and if the remains are commingled is important for the recovery process. 4.2. Phase 2: mortuary The role of the forensic anthropologist and his/her contribution to the mortuary phase will depend on the preservation of the deceased. When forensic anthropologists have assisted in the investigation of mass disasters, they have been critical in a range of analyses [16,26,27] including:
4. The role of a forensic anthropologist in a DVI Whether a result of human or natural circumstances, a disaster is likely to involve a range of extreme forces such as heat (burning), impact (G-force, wave), crushing (structure collapse), explosion, freefall (impact) and/or environmental influences (temperature; humidity; water—warm, cold, salt, fresh; carnivore/rodent activity) that all potentially impact on the condition of the body. Consequently, disasters resulting in mass fatalities commonly present a range of ‘‘differentially preserved remains that may include bodies and/or body parts that are: intact, fairly intact, decomposed, fragmentary, commingled, burned or cremated; partially burnt, distorted, buried or a combination of several of these states of preservation’’ [21] (see also [2]). Practitioners involved in the location, recovery and analysis of deceased individuals following a disaster must, therefore, have expertise not only in human anatomy but the taphonomic and diagenetic processes of different variables (including burial, fire, sun, salt, etc.) and the associated impact on the human body [22]. As part of routine casework, the forensic anthropologist commonly examines remains in varying states of preservation: skeletonised (with or without associated decomposing soft tissue, which is sometimes mummified); burned or otherwise damaged or altered including dismembered, or a combination of these conditions. The forensic anthropologist’s experience dealing with a range of differentially preserved skeletal remains means that they may also play a role in assisting in the DVI process [23], specifically in Phases 1 (the scene), 2 (the mortuary) and 4 (reconciliation). Involvement in Phase 3 (ante-mortem data collection) is, however, a regular feature of the forensic anthropologist’s role in human rights and post-conflict forensic investigations.
separation of osseous from non-osseous material (potentially done in the field and/or the mortuary); separation of human from non-human and non-bone material; (anthropologists were required to distinguish human from nonhuman remains in the New York September 11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre where many restaurants were located in the area of the destruction); separation of recognizable vs. non-recognizable fragments that require DNA analysis; (retrieval and identification of soft tissue fragments in the 2002 Bali incident, especially from individuals thought to be at the epicentre of the explosion, contributed to the identification of many of the deceased); separation of commingled remains; analysis of small fragments of bone from any region in the body; siding to left and right of skeletal fragments; analysis of cross-sections of bone in soft tissue masses; analysis of incinerated remains with no soft tissue; Evaluation of the above enables the forensic anthropologist to: determine the minimum numbers of individuals present, establish a biological profile (ancestry, sex, age, and/or stature) of those individuals, and provide an opinion on ante-, peri- and post-mortem trauma.
5. The forensic anthropologist and DVI in an Australian context: Bushfire case study 5.1. Phase 1: the scene
4.1. Phase 1: scene While there are comments in the literature that ‘‘forensic pathologists and anthropologists are not involved in the crime scene investigation; their activity is confined to the institute premises’’ [24], the benefits of including both anthropologists and pathologists at the scene are now well understood. Depending on the type of disaster and associated levels of preservation, the forensic anthropologist may assist at the scene first by identifying the presence of skeletal remains. While police have the core responsibility for Phase 1 responses, the presence of forensic anthropologists experienced in differential preservation working at disaster scenes is important to ensure remains that might otherwise be unrecognizable and therefore overlooked are identified, collected and made available for further examination. In the absence of this expertise the potential loss of evidence may impact on later phases of the process, especially the reconstruction of peri- and post-mortem events. Once skeletal remains have been located the forensic anthropologist can assist in determining whether the remains are in fact human. The forensic anthropolo-
Initial reports of numbers of individuals killed during the 7th February 2009 Victorian bushfires (referred to as the Black Saturday fires) were conflicting with figures ranging from 14 to 3000 deaths, more than 3000 properties lost, 7000 people displaced and several towns completely destroyed (Trevor Blake, DVI CBR Police Unit, Personal Communication 2009). In less than 48 h following the most devastating fires in Australia’s history multidisciplinary teams including police, pathologists, anthropologists, odontologists, mortuary scientific and technical staff, photographers and scribes assembled from throughout the state and beyond and commenced examinations of the deceased in the mortuary at the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine (VIFM). Ideally attendance of forensic anthropologist at the scene would have occurred in the days immediately following the Victorian disaster. However, in the case of the 2009 Victorian Bushfires Disaster there were 145 disparate scenes spread over an area of approximately 4000 hectares (over 1 million acres, or more than 1500 square miles) which meant there were multiple DVI’s at one time (Fig. 1). Much of the state was still burning and in addition,
[(Fig._1)TD$IG]
S. Blau, C.A. Briggs / Forensic Science International 205 (2011) 29–35
31
5.2. Phase 2: the mortuary
Fig. 1. Map illustrating the widespread location of the fires and associated numbers of fatalities (Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Feb_7_09_vic_bushfires_ map.PNG).
there were allegations that some fires had been intentionally lit, thus all sites had to be investigated as potential crime scenes. The coordination of resources has been described as ‘‘one of the most challenging aspects of mass disaster scene processing’’ [27]. Although there were numerous calls from police requesting the presence of an anthropologist at scenes, provision of expertise in the mortuary was given a higher priority, particularly in the early stages when the total death toll was being reconfigured on a daily basis and few anthropologists were available. Unlike medico-legal institutions in countries such as the United States which employ numerous forensic anthropologists [28] there are relatively few practicing forensic anthropologists in Australia [29]. The situation immediately following the 2009 Victorian Bushfires Disaster was made more difficult by the fact that three of the most experienced forensic anthropologists were deployed overseas engaged in work related activities. One of the briefs of the VIFM is to support the international development of forensic medical/science services and to this end one of these anthropologists was coordinating a Disaster Victim Identification course in Nepal while another was involved in the exhumation of human remains from a World War 2 plane crash in Papua New Guinea. Therefore, because of the need to maximize resources in the first week a protocol was quickly established in which it was decided an anthropologist would not attend all primary scenes but would instead be based in the mortuary. Some primary scenes that had not been completely investigated by the police were visited by multidisciplinary disaster teams, including an anthropologist, pathologist and dentist, at the beginning of the second week when the pool of available anthropologists had increased. Because of the huge scale of the fires and the multiple-scenes (which included 1886 destroyed homes and 760 destroyed vehicles) as well as the inability in the first days to obtain a definitive number of missing, within a week the Coroner issued a ‘‘Restricted Access Order’’ on the six main fire burn areas, which required destroyed and partly destroyed structures to be searched for possible human remains, that each scene should be re-visited and no sites should be cleared or interfered with until police and specialists were certain all remains had been recovered. A total of 86 re-visits were made, all of which included an anthropologist as part of the multidisciplinary investigation team. These re-visits continued until early March, more than a month after the fires started, and a total of 56 additional DVI numbers were generated as a result.
The fire-affected areas included not only bush land but also heavily populated centers. Consequently, there were vast numbers of completely and partially destroyed buildings, burnt-out vehicles, and livestock and native animals killed by the fire. While the temperatures of the Black Saturday fires were comparable to or exceeded those reached during a cremation (c. 1000 8C), what was remarkable was the length of time at which the fires burned at these or even higher temperatures. Unlike human remains in a modern crematorium, which are subjected to intense heat for approximately 1 h, after 4–5 h the bushfires were still burning and even after 24 h, temperatures recorded on some bodies were still 600–700 8C (John Callaher, Arson Investigation Forensic Science Centre personal communication 22/06/09) (see also [30] for discussion on the effects on bone of time, temperature and oxygen availably). In visiting one of the areas more than a week after the fires, an investigation team found burning embers under animal remains at the entrance to a site and at another site the floor of the destroyed house was still too hot to kneel on. These consistently high temperatures, combined with the duration of burning, had a significant impact on the preservation of the remains. 5.3. Preservation of remains As observed in many DVI situations [5] human remains recovered from the bushfires scenes were significantly differentially preserved and included relatively complete bodies, carbonized body parts (especially the large muscle masses of the back and thighs), identifiable carbonized soft tissue blocks including heart and lungs, as well as fully skeletonised remains. While some skeletal elements were relatively intact others were heavily burnt, often calcined, fragmentary and fragile (Fig. 2). Bones that commonly survived and were subsequently available for identification included vertebrae, heads of radii, articular surfaces of proximal aspects of femora and tibiae, as well as patellae and tali. Why the head of the femur should survive is understandable given it is deeply located within the large muscle mass of the proximal thigh, however survivability of the head of the radius is more difficult to explain and contrary to findings elsewhere [5,31]. Carbonised remains were found in close proximity to calcined elements, probably influenced by the thickness of subcutaneous tissue and body position in addition to proximity to the fire. The upper limbs commonly presented the ‘‘pugilistic’’ posture seen in severe fire-affected victims with related fractures of the mid-shaft of the radius and ulna. Distal segments of the lower limbs were also severely incinerated often with related fractures of the tibia and fibula. However, a high percentage of major joint complexes, particularly the hip, were often intact and once opened up had measurable articular surfaces. 5.4. Examination of remains The role of the forensic anthropologist in a DVI is no different to that in routine casework (see above). However, in order to deal with large numbers of differentially preserved remains, it is necessary to be able to quickly identify fragments which provide the most useful information for personal identification. In the case of the 2009 Victorian Bushfires Disaster, anthropologists worked closely with pathologists and odontologists analyzing differentially burnt and fragmentary remains and frequently re-visiting their initial estimates of sex and age when new information came to light. Over the duration of the DVI process forensic anthropologists examined 175 cases. Each case consisted of a body bag with a unique DVI number, which may have contained anything from a fragment of non-human bone to commingled human remains. In
[(Fig._2)TD$IG]
32
S. Blau, C.A. Briggs / Forensic Science International 205 (2011) 29–35
watches, mobile phones, prostheses as well as skeletal elements including articular surfaces The forensic anthropologist worked closely with the consultant radiologist in interpreting images, commenting on, for example, numbers of individuals, and the presence/absence of metallic artifacts, teeth, etc. [32]. It is well established that ‘‘[b]urning can make many objects look like bone that are not even biological in nature’’ [33]. In some cases the anthropologist had to differentiate non-osseous from osseous material. Building materials such as floor tiles were burnt to the extent that they resembled cranial elements and glues mimicked the morphology of dentition (Fig. 3). Because of the inability of forensic anthropologists to attend all scenes, photographs taken by police at the scene/s of skeletal remains suspected to be human were sent via a secure website to the VIFM. This allowed the anthropologists to quickly determine whether the remains were human or non-human. This innovation proved to be an extremely efficient way of spreading a thin resource over a wide area. In some cases the determination of the minimum numbers of individuals was straight forward, for example, where the torso of an 8-month-old child was commingled with fragments of an adult. In the majority of cases, however, where there was significant fragmentation of heavily burnt remains, the experience of the anthropologists in distinguishing differentially preserved remains to identify bony landmarks for individualization was essential. For example, in one case the shape and size of the articular surfaces of the tibial plateau was the only means of determining two left tibia and hence two individuals. Fig. 2. Differential preservation: (a) relatively intact skeletal elements and (b) heavily fragmentary skeletal remains.
5.5. Biological profiles
addition, the forensic anthropologists had to re-examine the remains on several occasions especially in relation to those with multiple deceased. The scenario was further complicated (and the overall DVI process considerably lengthened) by the fact that 31 cases were commingled on presentation to the mortuary and eight sets of remains were found to be non-human. As part of the normal VIFM protocol, all cases admitted to the mortuary were CT-scanned using a Toshiba AquilionTM 16 multidetector CT scanner. The utility of a CT scanner in a DVI situation has been highlighted in a domestic DVI context [4] but this was the first time it had been used in a disaster of this magnitude. The consultant radiologist viewed all cases prior to identification commencing in the mortuary and prepared a brief report which indicated the presence of metallic objects such as jewellery,
Standard anthropological techniques for determining a biological profile are well established [34,35]. However, in the case of mass fatalities involving a large number of differentially preserved, often heavily disrupted human remains, some techniques will be more useful than others. A major contribution from the anthropologist to the DVI process is the skill of being able to locate and identify in a timely manner the most relevant anatomical landmarks that may provide information about ancestry, sex, age and/or stature (Table 1). While such information will obviously not positively identify the individual, it facilitates a triaging process for other practitioners such as the pathologist and odontologists to then make their contributions. In the Victorian bushfires cases, ancestry and stature were not seen as important criteria for narrowing the window of possible
[(Fig._3)TD$IG]
Fig. 3. Building materials that mimicked burnt (a) human cranium and (b) dentition.
S. Blau, C.A. Briggs / Forensic Science International 205 (2011) 29–35
33
Table 1 Some of the more useful anatomical features for the estimation of ancestry, sex, age and stature in fragmentary human skeletal remains. Skeletal element
Anatomical features
Ancestry
Sex
Age
Stature
Cranium
Nasion morphology Glabella Occipital nuchal crest Mastoid process Supra orbital margin Zygomatic (suprameatal crest) Sphenooccipital synchondrosis Nasal aperture (sill) Shovel-shaped incisors Maxillary dentition Ramus (gonion angle) Mental eminence Mandibular dentition Presence of osteophytes Presence of ventral rings Pubis (pubic symphysis, subpubic angle; size) Ischio-pubic ramus Greater sciatic notch Pre-auricular surface Sacrum Proximal femur Distal femur Proximal tibia Distal tibia Proximal humerus Distal humerus Proximal radius Medial clavicle Sternal end
Yes – – – – – – Yes Yes – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
– Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes – – – – Yes Yes – – – Yes Yes Yes
– – – – – – Yes – – Yes – – Yes Yes Yes Yes – – Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes – – –
Maxilla
Mandible
Vertebra Pelvis
Sacrum Femur Tibia Humerus Radius Clavicle Ribs
identification with the focus being on sex and age. Although ancestry has been estimated in disaster contexts (e.g., [5]), the analysis is often controversial [36]. Given the remains were relatively poorly preserved and we were working in the context of a multi-cultural country, ancestry data was not seen as a useful variable for narrowing the range of possibilities for identification. While it is possible to estimate the stature of an individual from fragmentary human skeletal remains [37,38], height in living people is rarely or accurately recorded in Australia. Consequently, although stature has been seen as an important marker of personal identification [39], such estimates were not deemed useful in the investigation of identification of victims of the Victorian bushfires. Although the condition of the remains in the Victorian bushfire cases varied from carbonized to calcined it was generally feasible to estimate sex and to provide a guide as to age. Age estimation was always easier with juvenile or children’s remains. A significant complicating factor, however, was commingling at properties where there were multiple deaths. At one scene the remains of nine individuals, four adults and five children, were recovered from a destroyed house. From the original scene visits there was estimated to be as much as 90% of some individuals remaining, between 25 and 50% of others and in some cases less than 25% of the individuals survived. There was considerable commingling between the nine individuals with the possibility of non-human remains as well (dogs were known to have been in the house). From the information provided, one of the deceased was thought to be a young child. However four other older juveniles were also suspected of having died in the property. Although the remains were significantly commingled it was possible to distinguish several child lumbar vertebrae on evidence of markings (in the form of radiating lines) of the annular epiphyses. Several of these vertebrae were considerably smaller than the others and were attributed to the 5-year-old (there was no supporting DNA evidence). In one case a bra under wire was found (and identified as such on the CT images), indicating a female and there was evidence of an
Yes Yes – – – Yes – Yes – –
unfused proximal femoral epiphysis. The femoral head was able to be measured suggesting female, although sex determination is notoriously unreliable in juveniles. Additional commingled remains recovered from this site included two fused upper lumbar vertebrae with loss of the intervening disc space. The vertebrae showed no evidence of surgical fixation and on first examination it was thought osteophytic bony bars may have lead to the fusion. One of the missing persons was thought to be an elderly male, a neighbor who had retreated to the property when his own home was threatened. Medical records were sought but were unable to shed any light on a possible surgical fusion. However the son of the deceased remembered that his father had injured his back many years earlier and may have had surgery to address the damage. One unexpected find occurred during a scene re-visit to a property which had been destroyed by the fire. In removing sheets of galvanized iron, army personnel had come across skeletal material in a corner of a room, close to where a window ledge had previously been located. The anthropologist confirmed the remains were human and part of a skull. Careful excavation of the surrounding area revealed additional fragments of skull bones, with partial mandible containing some teeth. The entire room was subsequently searched for additional skeletal elements, in particular post-cranial remains; building materials were sifted and the search extended to the outside of the window in the unlikely event of disturbance when fire brigade personnel attended the scene. However, no evidence of additional bones could be found and the search was called off after several hours. Information relating to the incomplete nature of the scene was conveyed to the DVI Commander who subsequently contacted members of the family. It transpired the owner had been looking after a skull belonging to a local doctor and had left it on the window ledge in his study! The skull had presumably become dislodged when the house burnt down and was buried under the
34
S. Blau, C.A. Briggs / Forensic Science International 205 (2011) 29–35
rubble. Interestingly none of the skeletal elements, ramus of the mandible or temporal bones, had evidence of screws or hooks that might have held the calvarium in place, common clues that such finds were part of a teaching collection. 5.6. Pathology review Anthropological input to identification continued long after all remains had been examined in the mortuary. Pathology reviews took place as briefs were assembled by the police for presentation to the Identification Board chaired by the Coroner. In cases were commingling had occurred scene photographs were scrutinized as were details on the DVI pink forms in an attempt to confirm the position of each individual. Where doubts were raised the anthropologist routinely returned to the mortuary to re-examine the contents of body bags. 5.7. Logistical issues There were a number of occupational health and safety issues that had to be dealt with prior to working at a scene. In addition to assessing the integrity of walls in destroyed houses and having to work on floor surfaces that were still extremely hot, some of the scenes were contaminated by asbestos. None of the anthropologists had previous experience working in such conditions but were professionally guided by the relevant agency (e.g. fire authorities and police DVI personnel) in working both at the scene and in the mortuary in the appropriate personal protective clothing. Further, some of the DVI teams stayed overnight when doing re-visits therefore accommodation needed to be provided in areas that had been devastated by the bushfires. 5.8. Phase 4 Forensic anthropologists provided information at the pathology reviews to assist in confirming or denying the possibility of reassociating body parts for release to families. This consisted of individual case reviews incorporating consideration of scene photographs, pink Interpol DVI post-mortem forms and pathologists’ and radiologists’ reports. The anthropologist had not provided an independent report at the initial mortuary examination and in the subsequent debrief this was considered a significant omission. The utility of separate anthropology reports in DVI contexts is important not only for immediate cases reviews but also for future analyses of the data in order to attempt improve anthropology techniques [5,40]. Reassessments of diagrams drawn at the scene by the DVI police officer were particularly helpful in cases of commingling. As new information came to light, particularly from the odontologists and from ante-mortem materials, the anthropologist was required to re-examine body bags, predominantly in cases where there were multiple commingled deceased to separate individuals as far as possible, where families had indicated a desire for this to occur. 6. Conclusion Despite increased acknowledgement of the role forensic anthropologists can play in DVI, there remains room for improvement. For example, lessons learnt from forensic anthropologists involved in large scale disasters such as the Boxing Day 2005 tsunami and the 2009 Victorian bushfires include the need for anthropology protocols in the INTERPOL forms and entry of physical anthropology data in the DVI Sys1, Plassdata (a database which stores and compares data to assist with the identification process) [41].
While it has been argued that forensic anthropology in DVI situations has been under-utilized [20], over the past 20 years the medico-legal community has increasingly embraced forensic anthropology [42]. Depending on the type of disaster and the level of preservation of the deceased person/s, the specific role of the forensic anthropologist in the DVI process will change. The 2009 Victorian bushfires have highlighted the need to always consider including a forensic anthropologist as part of the multidisciplinary team managing a DVI. It was shown that the anthropologist can play a crucial role in narrowing the initial search and provide key information directing the pathologist (who may have limited experience of differentially burnt skeletal elements) to the right conclusions with regards to the sex and age of the deceased. In addition, the anthropologist’s knowledge and experience in separating human from non-human remains as well as left and right elements greatly assisted in the determination of the minimum number of individuals at a scene and significantly reduced the overall time taken to finalize identification. Acknowledgements The authors are grateful for comments provided by Luis Fondebrider (EAAF) and two anonymous reviewers. References [1] S. Blau, A. Hill, Disaster Victim Identification: a review, Minerva Medicolegale 129 (2009) 35–46. [2] D. Cristina Cattaneo, d.A. Marco Grandi, Mass disasters, in: E.C. Aurore Schmitt, Joao Pinheiro (Eds.), Forensic Anthropology and Medicine: Complementary Sciences from Recovery to Cause of Death, Human Press, New Jersey, 2006, pp. 431–443. [3] T.D. Stewart, in: T.D. Stewart (Ed.), Personal Identification in Mass Disasters, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, 1970. [4] T. Kahana, J. Hiss, The role of forensic anthropology in mass fatality incidents management, Forensic Science Policy and Management: An International Journal 1 (3) (2009) 144–149. [5] D.H. Ubelaker, et al., The role of forensic anthropology in the recovery and analysis of Branch Davidian Compound victims: recovery procedures and characteristics of the victims, Journal of Forensic Science 40 (3) (1995) 335–340. [6] P. Sledzik, Federal resources in mass disaster response, Cultural Resource Management 10 (1996) 19–20. [7] M.J. Hinkes, The role of a forensic anthropologist in mass disaster resolution, Aviation Space Environment Medicine 60 (1989) A60–A63. [8] A. Buck, DVI forensic anthropology procedures (Appendix K), in: Australian DVI Standards Manual, Emergency Management Australia and the Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, 2004. [9] J. Hunter, Domestic homicide investigation in the United Kingdom, in: S. Blau, D.H. Ubelaker (Eds.), Handbook of Forensic Anthropology, Left Coast Press, California, 2009, pp. 374–387. [10] S. Black, Disaster anthropology, in: S. Blau, D.H. Ubelaker (Eds.), Handbook of Forensic Anthropology, Left Coast Press, California, 2009, pp. 397–406. [11] M. Doretti, L. Fondebrider, Science and human rights—truth, justice, reparation and reconciliation: a long way in third world countries, in: V. Buchli, L. Gavin (Eds.), Archaeologies of the Contemporary Past, Routledge, London, 2001, pp. 138–144. [12] M. Doretti, C.C. Snow, Forensic anthropology and human rights: The Argentine experience, in: D.W. Steadman (Ed.), Hard Evidence: Case Studies in Forensic Anthropology, Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 2003, pp. 290–310. [13] J.E.B. Debra Komar, Forensic Anthropology: Contemporary Theory and Practice., Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2008. [14] S. Blau, S. Robertson, M. Johnstone, Disaster victim identification: new applications for postmortem computed tomography, Journal of Forensic Science 53 (4) (2008) 956–961. [15] S.U. Stratton, O.B. Beattie, Mass disasters: comments and discussion regarding the Hinton Train Collision of 1986, in: S.J. Fairgrieve (Ed.), Forensic Osteological Analysis, Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, 1999, pp. 267–286. [16] P. Sledzik, et al., Disaster victim recovery and identification: forensic anthropology in the aftermath of September 11th, in: D.W. Steadman (Ed.), Hard Evidence: Case Studies in Forensic Anthropology, 2nd ed., Prentice Hall, 2009. [17] A.Z. Mundorff, Anthropologist directed triage: three distinct mass fatality events involving fragmentation of human remains, in: B.J. Adams, J.E. Byrd (Eds.), Recovery, Analysis, and Identification of Commingled Human Remains, Humana Press, Totowa, NJ, 2008, pp. 123–144. [18] G. Mackinnon, A.Z. Mundorff, The World Trade Center–September 11, 2001, in: T.J.U. Thompson, S.M. Black (Eds.), Forensic Human Identification: An Introduction, CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2007, pp. 485–499.
S. Blau, C.A. Briggs / Forensic Science International 205 (2011) 29–35 [19] C. Briggs, A. Buck, The role of the anthropologist in Disaster Victim Identification: the Bali incidents 2002 and 2004, in: S. Blau, D.H. Ubelaker (Eds.), Handbook of Forensic Anthropology, Left Coast Press, California, 2009, pp. 407–415. [20] D.C. Dirkmaat, Anthropology response to Hurricane Katrina, Proceedings of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences (2006). [21] S. Blau, Forensic anthropology and its contributions to police investigations, Australian Police Journal 63 (1) (2009) 4–14. [22] F.P. Saul, J.M. Saul, Planes, trains, and fireworks: the evolving role of the forensic anthropologist in mass fatality incidents, in: D.W. Steadman (Ed.), Hard Evidence: Case Studies in Forensic Anthropology, Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 2009,pp. 266–277. [23] T. Kahana, M. Freund, J. Hiss, Suicidal terrorist bombings in Israel–identification of human remains, Journal of Forensic Sciences 42 (1997) 259–263. [24] S.I. Fairgrieve, Forensic Cremation: Recovery and Analysis, CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2008. [25] R.W. Byard, J.A. Ross, J. Zuccollo, Potential confusion arising from material presenting as possible human remains, The American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology 4 (2001) 391–394. [26] A.Z. Mundorff, Urban anthropology, case studies from the New York City Medical Examiner’s Office, in: D.W. Steadman (Ed.), Hard Evidence: Case Studies in Forensic Anthropology, Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 2003, pp. 52–62. [27] D.W. Owsley, et al., The role of forensic anthropology in the recovery and analysis of Branch Davidian compound victims: techniques of analysis, Journal of Forensic Sciences 40 (1995) 341–348. [28] R. Pickering, D. Bachman, The Use of Forensic Anthropology, CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2009. [29] D. Donlon, The development and current state of forensic anthropology: an Australian perspective, in: S. Blau, D.H. Ubelaker (Eds.), Handbook of Forensic Anthropology, Left Coast Press, California, 2009, pp. 104–114. [30] P.L. Walker, K.W.P. Miller, R. Richmand, Time, temperature, and oxygen availability: an experimental study of the effects of environmental conditions on the color and organic content of cremated bone, in: C.W. Schmidt, S.A. Symes (Eds.), The Analysis of Burned Human Remains, Academic Press, London, 2008, pp. 129–136.
35
[31] S.A. Symes, et al., Patterned thermal destruction of human remains in a forensic setting, in: C.W. Schmidt, S.A. Symes (Eds.), The Analysis of Burned Human Remains, Academic Press, London, 2008. [32] C. O’Donnell, et al., Contribution of postmortem multidetector CT scanning to identification of the deceased in a mass disaster: experience gained from the 2009 Victorian bushfires, Forensic Sciences International 205 (2011) 15–28. [33] C. Schmidt, S. Symes, in: C. Schmidt, S. Symes (Eds.), Preface in the analysis of burned human remains, Academic Press, London, 2008. [34] T. Simmons, W. Haglund, Anthropology in a forensic context, in: J. Hunter, M. Cox (Eds.), Forensic Archaeology: Advances in Theory and Practice, Routledge, London, 2005, pp. 159–176. [35] D.H.U. Jane Buikstra, Standards for Data Collection from Human Skeletal Remains, vol. 44, Arkansas Archaeological Survey, Arkansas, 1994. [36] I. Tattersall, Race: scientific nonproblem cultural quagmire, The Anatomical Record 278B (2004) 23–26. [37] D.G.a.M.T.W. Steele, A method for assessment of maximum long bone length and living stature from fragmentary long bones, American Journal of Physical Anthropology 31 (2) (1969) 215–227. [38] T. Simmons, R.L. Jantz, W.M. Bass, Stature estimation from fragmentary femora: a revision of the Steele method, Journal of Forensic Science 35 (3) (1990) 628– 636. [39] J.K. Littleton, R. Kinaston, Ancestry, age, sex and stature: identification in a diverse space, in forensic approaches to death, in: M. Oxenham (Ed.), Disaster and Abuse, Australian Academic Press, Queensland, 2009, pp. 155–176. [40] D.W. Owsley, et al., The role of forensic anthropology in the recovery and analysis of Branch Davidian Compound victims: techniques of analysis, Journal of Forensic Science 40 (3) (1995) 341–348. [41] J.E. Buikstra, D.H. Ubelaker, Standards for Data Collection from Human Skeletal Remains, in: Proceedings of the Seminar at the Field Museum of Natural History, Arkansas Archaeological Survey Research Series, 1994. [42] K. Kieser, Silence of the limbs—reinventing forensic anthropology, HOMO—Journal of Comparative Human Biology 60 (2009) 239–290.