Anthropology and its Uses in Single Body and Mass Fatality Cases

Authors Avatar

Chlöe Richards  (Clr22)                                Forensic Investigation   (Single Honours)                                                        

Abstract

The research focus of this piece is forensic anthropology as a whole, with special attention to differences in methodologies in single body and multiple fatality cases. This piece focuses on the many techniques of forensic anthropology, such as osteology and odontology, as well as touching on its legal standing both in the UK and in the US.

 Case studies are used to illustrate the ways in which anthropology has been used and the case studies include both single body cases and those of multiple fatalities to give a more in-depth view of techniques used and how they vary from case to case.  Studies from the US and the UK were looked at, as it was found that anthropology is more widely used in the United States, although it is becoming more accepted here in the United Kingdom, as shown in this piece.

 This piece found that anthropology is, although a relatively new subject, an extremely important tool in legal cases, and one that can only get more recognition as its usefulness and applications to crime are fully realised.

 

Contents

Chapter 1: Introduction and a brief history to anthropology

Chapter 2: Osteology

2.1 Bone Structure

2.2 Skeletal Structure

2.3 Bone Types

Chapter 3: Forensic Anthropology

3.1 The Skull

3.2 Determining the Race of a Victim

3.2.1 Skull Examination

3.2.2 New Methods

3.3 Determining the Sex of a Victim

3.3.1 Skull Examination

3.3.2 Pelvis Examination

3.3.3 Other Bone Examinations to Determine Sex

3.3.4 New Methods

3.4 Determining the Age of a Victim

3.4.1 Pelvis Examination

3.4.2 Other Bone Examinations to Determine Age

3.4.3 New Methods

3.5 Determining Stature

Chapter 4: Odontology

Chapter 5: Individual Features of the Victim – their Life and Death Story

5.1 Carbon Dating

Chapter 6: Mass Fatality Incidents

6.1 Cases

6.2 Morgue Processes

Chapter 7: Conclusion – Evaluation of Current Techniques, and the Future of Forensic Anthropology

Individual Study – 40 Credits: Anthropology and its Uses in Single Body and Mass Fatality Cases

Chapter 1: An Introduction

Anthropology is the study of humanity: its cultures, its peoples, their behaviour and what makes humans, human. Forensic anthropology is applying the science of physical anthropology and archaeology, and also applying human osteology and odontology so that legal cases can be solved and proved. Forensic anthropologists recover and identify skeletal remains; the condition of these remains varies greatly (they can be decomposed, cremated, mutilated, disarticulated or fragmented to name a few), and cases range from “recent homicides to the illegal destruction of ancient Indian burial sites” (Ramey-Burns, 2007, p.3). Forensic anthropologists work many different types of cases, from individual cases to mass disasters and human rights cases, so it is quite a wide field.

The common perception is that forensic anthropology is a very new area of forensic investigation, but literature reveals that there is a significant history in this area. The first case of anthropology being used was in 1850 in the United States. A noted physician was murdered and parts of his skeleton and some teeth were found in a furnace. Dentists and anatomists were called in to examine the remains and matched them to the victim (see Appendix one for a detailed history of anthropology and the first case in which it was used).

Closer to home, however, anthropology was not used until 1935, when a doctor murdered his wide and servant and disposed of the dismembered remains in a river 100 miles away. Anthropology was used to superimpose photographs of the victims’ heads over photographs of the victims’ skulls.

  Both of these cases show that anthropology has been around in a forensic context for a lot longer than many people realise, and another, more recent case where anthropology was used was to identify the body of a small boy who had disappeared over a quarter of a century earlier. From a fractured wrists and notes made at the time of the disappearance, anthropologists were able to match the skeleton to the victim, and his father was convicted of his murder (For the history of anthropology in the UK and more detail on the two cases above, please see Appendix 2).

   However, it is important to note that although anthropology has been around for a lot longer than many people realise, it is only useful in certain cases. The remains must be skeletonised, and so, although as the above cases prove, it is useful in single body cases, it is more often used in cases where mass fatalities have occurred (i.e. natural disasters, mass graves etc).  Another point of importance is that forensic anthropology is not an exact science. It can certainly narrow the field of identification, but very rarely can it give positive identification. It must be used in conjunction with other fields (such as DNA) in order to provide positive identification.

   The reason for choosing anthropology as the study area for this piece is that it is a relatively unheard of field, and because it is also quite a contested field - with many legal representatives not believing it should be given any real legal standing or credence. Many people think anthropology exists only on television programmes.  This piece aims to show that anthropology is indeed useful and real, and that it should be paid more attention to, as without it many cases would remain unsolved and many victims would remain unidentified.  This has been achieved by consulting various academic journals and books, and by looking at case studies of both single body cases and mass fatalities to examine and evaluate the difference in the methodologies used in these different types of cases, with a view to exploring ways to make results more accurate and specific.

  Although it is true to say that anthropology is becoming more widely utilised in the forensic area and more readily accepted in a court of law, it is clear that there is still some confusion as to what it is and how it differs from related disciplines such as pathology and archaeology. Archaeologists focus on the study of past human societies by recovering and analysing the material culture (pottery, jewellery, structures) and environmental data (age of soil, dendrochronology etc); whereas forensic anthropologists focus on contributing towards establishing a presumptive and/or positive identification of deceased individuals, and, where possible, towards establishing the manner of death, as well as events leading up to the death (Blau and Ubelaker, 2009).  

  Generally, forensic anthropologists are experienced osteologists, and forensic pathologists are doctors or physicians with a specialisation in forensic pathology (Midori-Albert). Forensic anthropologists also differ from forensic pathologists in that anthropologists generally deal with either fully or partially skeletonised remains, whereas pathologists deal more with fleshed bodies. The pathologist will focus on the soft tissues, and the anthropologist on hard tissues.  Given that decomposition is a continuous process, the skill sets of these two specialists do tend to overlap, and as such they are sometimes called upon to work in tandem with each other (Ramey-Burns, 2007).

  Chapter 2: Osteology

As briefly mentioned in the previous chapter, anthropology has various branches, but the branch of significance in the forensic arena is biological anthropology, which includes the disciplines of human osteology and odontology.

  The first technique (and the widest field) is osteology, which will be discussed further in the upcoming chapters based on race, sex, age and individual features (see Appendix 3 for a history of osteology).

Osteology is, simply put, the study of bones.  It’s a subclass of biological anthropology and archaeology, and it explores the development, function, structure and variations found within bones.  Using osteology it is possible to tell someone’s genetic origin, their age, sex, diet, any trauma they experienced, any disease and even recognise any habitual activities the person may have indulged in – though this is dependent on ante mortem information.

 

2.1 Bone Structure

Bone is the loosest type of connective tissue (see Appendices 4 and 5 for a table and description of connective tissues), and there are two basic types present in an adult skeleton: dense and spongy. Dense bone is also known as “compact”, “lamellar” or “cortical” bone. It’s made up of concentric lamellar osteons and interstitial lamellae that provide strength and resistance to torsion. Dense bone forms the bone cortex, which is the main portion of the shaft surrounding the medullary (spinal cord) cavity.

  Spongy bone is also called “cancellous” or “trabecular” bone and is characterised by thin, bony trabeculae (small, beam-like type of tissue), which create a latticework filled with bone marrow of embryonal connective tissue (see Fig. 1).

  There is a third type of bone, which is woven bone. This doesn’t occur in the healthy adult body though; it occurs when bone has been broken or fractured and it stitches itself back together again.

Figure 1: Types of Bone:: Wiley, J. (2006)

 

The primary function of all the bones is support, but bones also provide protection, movement, blood cell formulation and mineral storage. The bones of the skull and the pelvis are armour-like in their protection, whilst the more flexible bones of the rib cage protect vital organs from damage, without being too rigid in their movement.

  As bone is the type of connective tissue that osteologists primarily deal with (although they do also deal with cartilage), the chemical composition of bone and the types of bone cell are the ones described focused on in this piece.  Bone consists of both organic and inorganic components. The organic component accounts for about 35% of the bone mass and is composed of cells, collagen fibres and ground substance. Ground substance is an amorphous material in which structural elements occur and is composed of protein polysaccharides, tissues fluids and metabolites.

  The inorganic component is 65% of the bone mass and is composed of mineral salts (primarily calcium phosphate), which form tiny crystals and wedge themselves tightly into the extra cellular matrix of collagen fibres.  

  The three types of bone cells are osteoblasts, osteoclasts, and osteocytes.  An osteocyte is a bone cell – they are long-term maintenance cells that are transformed from osteoblasts when the osteoblasts become lodged in their own bony matrix. An osteoblast is specific to the building and growth of the bone matrix. They are found at sites of bone grown, repair and re-modelling. Osteoclasts are focussed on the destruction and tearing down of bone. They are large, multi-nucleated cells that are found at sites of repair and re-modelling (Plotkin, 2006).

2.2 Skeletal Structure

The adult human skeleton consists 206 bones in total (see Fig. 2), and the bones can be fused (e.g. pelvis, cranium) or individual (e.g. ossicles: which articulate only with each other, hyoid bone: supported purely by muscles and ligaments – see Appendix 6). Either type can be supported and supplemented by ligaments, tendons, muscles and cartilage. The skeleton has three main uses: to protect the body from damage, to provide support so that standing is possible, and to enable movement. Aside from these three uses, it also serves as a scaffold that supports organs, anchors muscles, and protects organs such as the brain, lungs and the heart, The biggest bone in the body is the femur in the upper leg, and the smallest is the stapes bone in the middle ear. In an adult, the skeleton comprises around 14% of the total body weight, and half of this weight is water.

Figure 2: The Human Skeleton, Front and Back Views, Villarreal,M. (2007)

2.3 Bone Types.

   Now that the various tissue types and their applications have been detailed, the methods used in osteology will be discussed. An osteological analysis will typically include: an inventory of the skeletal elements present, a dental inventory, aging data (based upon epiphyseal fusion and dental eruption for sub-adults and deterioration of the pubic symphysis or sternal end of ribs for adults), stature, ancestry, non-metric traits and pathology and/or cultural modifications.

  Osteologists base their inventory of the skeletal elements present on the classifications of several different systems, depending on the aspect of the skeleton that is the focus of their attention.  Bones are therefore categorised by their  location, size, shape, origin and their structure.

The location of bones is based upon the fact that the human skeleton is divided into two distinct parts: the axial and the appendicular. The axial skeleton is the foundation to which the appendicular skeleton is attached. With the exception of the ribs, the bones of the axial skeleton are singular. The axial skeleton is composed of the 80 bones in head and trunk of the human body: the skull, the ossicles of the inner ear (see Fig. 3), the hyoid bone of the throat (see Fig. 4) the ribcage, and the vertebral column. The appendicular skeleton is composed of 126 bones that anchor the appendages to the axial skeleton, so the upper extremities (arms), lower extremities (legs), the shoulder girdle, the pectoral girdle and the pelvic girdle (the sacrum and coccyx are considered part of the appendicular skeleton).

  The size and shape classification refers to the long bones, short bones, flat bones, irregular bones, sesamoid bones and sutural bones. (See Fig. 3).

Figure 3: Table of Types of Bone Rose, I. (2007)

 

  The origin of bones is decided on by whether the bones form by intramembranous or endochondral ossification – this forming is called “osteogenesis”. Intramembranous ossification is bone formation between membranes. The cells are divided into osteoblast and hematopoietic (blood forming) cells that build the bone directly, without an intermediate model. Examples of intramembranous ossification are the flat bones of the skull, pelvis and scapula.

  Endrochrondral ossification occurs when bones form within a cartilaginous model. Cells differentiate into chondroblasts (which build cartilage, in this case, hyaline cartilage), which then becomes a model for the future bones. After this, some of the cells become osteoblasts and hematopoietic cell, which build upon the model created by the chondroblasts. Cartilage continues to be produced ahead of bone in this process, and bone invades the cartilage until the growth is complete. Both long and short bones form through this process.

  The structure of bones is, as previously detailed, classified on whether or not the bone is dense or spongy.

   It is clear to see that a lot of useful data can be gained from osteology, and in the upcoming chapters there will be a lot more detail regarding the skull, and as previously mentioned how to determine age, sex and race, as well as how individual features can identify victims.

Chapter 3: Forensic Anthropology

  This chapter focuses on various techniques used in anthropology to determine the race, sex, age and stature of a victim. Of course, before anthropologists can begin to establish any of these characteristics, they must first ascertain whether the evidence found is, in fact bone, and if so, if it is human. It is important to point out that the reasoning behind the ordering of the following sub-chapters is derived from the order in which anthropologists profile victims: race, sex, age and stature. Anthropologists profile victims in because in order to know the sex of a victim, they must know the race (as there are sexual differences in each race), and in order to know the age, the sex must be known, and so forth.

3.1: The Skull

One of the most useful sets of bones for determining race, sex and age of a victim is the skull. See Figures 6 through to 8 for detailed and labelled diagrams of the skull.

Figure 4: Lateral View of the Skull

Figure 5: Frontal View of the Skull

Figure 6: Basal View of the Skull

3.2 Determining the Race of a Victim

The first stage in anthropological profiling is, as previously noted, the determination of race. Most anthropologists refer only to three biological races: Caucasoid, Negroid and Mongoloid (see Fig. 9).  Race determination requires examination of the skull as the morphology between the three major races differs quite considerably (see Fig.7).

Figure 7: The Skulls of the Three Major Races:

   

                 Caucasoid                                      Negroid                                    Mongoloid            

3.2.1 Skull Examination

Anthropometry (the measurement of man) can help to discern one race from another, although in the past this has been done for rather sinister reasons, rather than to help to identify victims and bring justice. During the early 20th century, anthropologists in the United States and Europe used anthropometry extensively, with one of its primary uses being the attempted differentiation of the  of man. It was often employed to show ways in which races were inferior to others, and to predict criminality. Happily, today it’s used for much nobler purposes in anthropology, such as victim identification and small-scale population analysis. This part of the chapter on race will focus on a subdivision of anthropometry, called “craniometrics” (where only the skull is considered).  Craniometric points are well-defined points on the skull; these points are used for precise and reproducible cranial measurements. Anthropologists measure the cranium, the orbit, the  palate and the mandible to determine race, as every population shares the same general head shape (see Fig. 18for craniometric points). All of the points allow the exact measurement of the height, breadth and thickness of the skull and its specific bones. These measurements are based on something called the Frankfort Plane (see Appendix 7).

Figure 8: Craniometric Points – Frontal View:

 

   

 

Another way to determine the race of a victim is by using the following formulas:

Mongoloid: 2.15 x (oblique length of femur) +72.57

Negroid: 2.10 x (oblique length of femur) +72.22

Caucasoid: 2.32 x (oblique length of femur) + 65.53

3.2.2 New Methods

The Caucasoid skull can be further divided into Nordic (North European), Alpine (Central European) and Mediterranean (Southern European), and the differences between all three main races and the three sub-divisions of the Caucasoid can be seen in the table below (Fig. 9), which can be found at []:

Figure 9: Skull Traits of the Main Races:

Join now!

These basic racial traits provide a means to describe people during the process of identification as, as shown above, racial traits differ in frequency from one major region of the world to another. For this purpose, FORDISC (a computer programme developed to help anthropologists create a biological profile for victims when only part of the cranium is present. It works by using discriminant function analysis, which is developed from a large database of skeletal measurements). When used in conjunction with manual comparison, this is proving to be extremely useful (Ramsthaler, 2007) and will continue to become more useful as ...

This is a preview of the whole essay