Remote sensing applications in forensic investigations

Davenport, G. Clark

doi:10.1007/bf03374530

Cited by 107 publications

(77 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This method is important not only because it is non-destructive but also because it becomes possible to choose the best RS option for the particular forensic case [12].…”

Section: Remote Sensingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Forensic Geo-Archaeology in Italy: Materials for a Standardisation

Barone

Maggio²,

Ferrara

2015

IJA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The so-called 'CSI effect' was recently observed in the Italian judicial system. The reason for the increase in instances of this effect is the lack of a standard geo-archaeological procedure in conducting a forensic investigation. To avoid the harmful consequences of this lack of standardisation, it is necessary to develop a robust geo-archaeological protocol for use during every crime scene investigation.

show abstract

“…This method is important not only because it is non-destructive but also because it becomes possible to choose the best RS option for the particular forensic case [12].…”

Section: Remote Sensingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Forensic Geo-Archaeology in Italy: Materials for a Standardisation

Barone

Maggio²,

Ferrara

2015

IJA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Davenport 2001;Powell 2004;Roark et al 1998;Ruffell 2005). Of the methods available, ground penetrating radar (GPR) has proven to be the most consistently successful (France et al 1992), usually when there are clear areas…”

Section: Using Geophysical Techniques To Locate Burialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Locating places for repatriated burial: a case study from Ngarrindjeriruwe, South Australia

Wallis

Moffat

Trevorrow³

et al. 2008

Antiquity

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this ingenious co-operative case study, archaeologists and Indigenous peoples use geophysical survey to scan suitable places for the reburial of repatriated human remains. The process is also building a procedure for the low impact and respectful research of early Indigenous burial locations.Keywords: South Australia, Indigenous burial, repatriation, reburial, geophysical survey Introduction We ask non-Indigenous people to respect and understand our traditions, our rights and our responsibilities according to Ngarrindjeri laws and to realise that what affects us, will eventually affect them (Ngarrindjeri Nation 2006: 13).In recent decades the issue of repatriation has generated much debate, and increasing pressure has been brought to bear on institutions to repatriate their collections of Indigenous skeletal remains and cultural objects (Fforde 2004;Fforde et al. 2002). Alongside their international counterparts, Australian Indigenous communities have been at the forefront of this movement, since many of their ancestors were placed in collections by the scientific community with the aim of ascertaining where they 'belonged' in evolutionary and racial classification schema. The process of repatriating Indigenous Australian skeletal remains is now well underway with many large collections having been returned (e.g. Hall 1986;Hemming & Wilson 2005;Lahn 1996;Turnbull 1993). However, there remain many outstanding issues for resolution.The repatriation of human remains is the beginning of a complex process that often rapidly exhausts local capacities and resources (Wilson 2005). Generally speaking there are three options available: retaining the remains in a Keeping Place (whether temporarily or permanently); cremation; and/or reburial. While recognising the importance of all these options, we concern ourselves here only with issues relating to the third option, reburial, and only when interment occurs in the ground (as opposed to bundle burials being placed in caves or logs). In some instances, the community desires that reinterment occurs as soon as possible, and this is carried out quickly wherever access to land with secure tenure can be obtained. For other communities, it is critically important to ensure their ancestors are reburied as close as possible to their original interment locations, often entailing a lengthier process in order to ascertain where that might be. Unfortunately, this outcome is not always achievable as sometimes the accompanying documentation is insufficient to determine the original burial location, or alternatively the burial site may have been developed in the intervening period. In one instance involving the Muthi Muthi people, the original burial site had subsequently become a popular public camping area and Elders felt reburial would be safer in a more private location nearby (Mary Pappin pers. comm.). Likewise, when almost 200 individuals excavated in the 1970s from the Broadbeach burial ground (Haglund 1976) were repatriated, the Kombumerri community chose a reburial location in ...

show abstract

“…However, little control study research has been published in which buried forensic objects are detected using a variety of geophysical methods, other than to confirm metal detection team results (e.g. [3][4] and for human remains (e.g. [3,[5][6][7][8][9]).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[3][4] and for human remains (e.g. [3,[5][6][7][8][9]). [10] conducted a control study with buried weapons and found that electro-magnetic equipment could detect metallic objects buried in a grid distribution in a rural environment.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%