Ground-penetrating radar (GPR) was used to monitor 12 pig burials in Florida, each of which contained a large pig cadaver. Six of the cadavers were buried in sand at a depth of 0.50-0.60 m, and the other six were buried at a depth of 1.00-1.10 m and were in contact with the upper surface of a clay horizon. Control excavations with no pig internment were also constructed as blank graves and monitored with GPR. The burials were monitored with GPR for durations of either 12-13 or 21-21.5 months when they were then excavated to correlate the decomposition state of the cadaver with the GPR imagery. Overall, cadavers in sand were easily detected for the duration of this study at 21.5 months, even when completely skeletonized. Conversely, in clay it became increasingly difficult to image the pig cadavers over the first year of burial, even when they still retained extensive soft tissue structures.

Ground-penetrating radar (GPR) was used to monitor 12 pig burials in Florida, each of which contained a small pig cadaver. Six of the cadavers were buried in sand at a depth of 0.50-0.60 m, and the other six were buried in sand at a depth of 1.00-1.10 m to represent deep and shallow burials that are generally encountered in forensic scenarios. Four control excavations with no pig interment were also constructed as blank graves and monitored with GPR. The burials were monitored for durations of either 13 or 21 months, and were then excavated to correlate the decomposition state of the cadaver with the GPR imagery. Overall, this study demonstrated that it may be difficult to detect small cadavers buried in sand soon after they are skeletonized because the area surrounding the body, or the grave, may not provide a strong enough contrasting area to be detected by GPR when compared to that of the surrounding undisturbed soil. Also, depth of burial appears to influence grave detection because bodies that are buried at deeper depths may be detected for a longer period of time due to reduced decomposition rates.

Ground-penetrating radar (GPR) has become an important forensic archaeology tool used by law enforcement agencies to search for buried bodies of homicide victims. However, these agencies most often secure outside consultants to perform searches because of equipment expense and the specialized training required to operate the equipment and interpret results. This article provides a thorough discussion of GPR methodology and implementation of this technology by law enforcement agencies for clandestine body searches. The discussion provides investigators with basic knowledge of the GPR process, enabling an understanding of how the equipment is used to search for buried bodies and how investigators can secure the services of a properly trained GPR operator. Benefits of forming forensic archaeology partnerships between law enforcement agencies and academic forensic practitioners to secure GPR equipment are also discussed, with the recently established partnership between the University of Central Florida and the Orange County Sheriff’s Office as an example.

One of the tasks of a forensic anthropologist is to sort human bone fragments from other materials, which can be difficult when dealing with highly fragmented and taphonomically modified material. The purpose of this research is to develop a method using handheld X-ray fluorescence (HHXRF) spectrometry to distinguish human and nonhuman bone/teeth from nonbone materials of similar chemical composition using multivariate statistical analyses. The sample materials were derived primarily from previous studies: human bone and teeth, nonhuman bone, nonbiological materials, nonbone biological materials, and taphonomically modified materials. The testing included two phases, testing both the reliability of the instrument and the accuracy of the technique. The results indicate that osseous and dental tissue can be distinguished from nonbone material of similar chemical composition with a high degree of accuracy (94%). While it was not possible to discriminate rock apatite and synthetic hydroxyapatite from bone/teeth, this technique successfully discriminated ivory and octocoral.

No abstract