The Danish Disaster Victim Identification effort in the Thai Tsunami: organisation and results

Abstract

Following the December 2004 tsunami in Thailand experts from many countries, including Denmark, went to Thailand to help with identification work. The Interpol system for Disaster Victim Identification (DVI) was employed for the identification of the many casualties. This paper describes the work of the Danish teams in Thailand from the 30th December 2004 until the 6th June 2005. The investigation covers all Danes reported missing directly after the tsunami in Thailand on the 26th December 2004 and who were later found deceased, or, in one case, never recovered. The AM and PM forms were reviewed retrospectively and the relevant information compared. Forensic odontology alone was responsible for 70.3% of identifications, and in two more cases (5.4%) the identification was established using a combination of odontology and fingerprint information. Fingerprints were used to establish identity in 8 cases (21.6%). DNA-typing was only used in one identification, in combination with fingerprinting data. Only one Danish victim was not identified. This review of the 37 Danish cases confirms that odontological examination yielded the most identifications, fingerprint data much fewer, and DNA was only used to a small extent, due to organisational problems with the examination and because the initial samples were of inferior quality.

Managing the identification of the mortal victims run over by a train in the Castelldefels railway accident (Barcelona)

“…AM and PM samples were always collected for DNA studies in close collaboration with the heads of the forensic laboratories [18][19][20], which meant that there was no need to collect new PM and AM samples, thus avoiding further bothering families and delaying the identification process. The judge decided that all the samples collected should be analyzed, regardless of their size.…”

Forensic odontological observations in the victims of DANA air crash

“…Fingerprinting was used in only 21.6% and DNA was used inonly one identification in combination with fingerprinting. Only one Danish individual was not identified [ 15 ] in that study. However, this study has revealed a great contrast in the identification where only 10% was identified using odontological method and another 97.4% using a combination of odontology with DNA method.…”

Forensic identification and identity politics in 2004 post-tsunami Thailand: Negotiating dissolving boundaries

“…Identification comes from a retrospective review of 6 the ante-mortem and post-mortem forms and the relevant information is compared. 36 The guidelines for establishing identity of a victim require at least two different methods of a positive match such as fingerprints and dental evidence. 37 Once evidence for identifying an individual was considered sufficient, a case report was compiled outlining the reasons for the identification.…”