The Utility of Skeletal and Surgical Features for the Personal Identification Process: A Pilot Study

Abstract

This pilot study provides a conceptual framework for the application of the anthropological analysis of skeletal features and surgical interventions for the purpose of identification in cases of unknown deceased individuals with unavailable fingerprint, genetic or odontological antemortem data. The study sample includes 276 individuals with known demographic and clinical information from the Italian CAL Milano Cemetery Skeletal Collection. In the sample, 124 (45%) individuals showed one or more skeletal features that may be potentially individualizing. Of these, 79% showed two and more features, which occurred in a multitude of different combinations. Skeletal findings may provide useful postmortem information that can be compared with antemortem witness statements and clinical imaging. However, more research into the utility of dry bone findings and the availability of comparative material, including imaging, and epidemiological data needs to be undertaken before skeletal features can be implemented into identification protocols and databases.

Exploring the potential of cranial non-metric traits as a tool for personal identification: the never-ending dilemma

“…However, the traits of this study are among those showing a higher accuracy in Bertoglio et al [36]. Even though the use of CT scan has recently increased in developed countries [37], this may not be the case of developing countries or people of low economic status all over the world [2,29], whose limited access to healthcare creates a shortage of AM records and information for the searched individuals, thus hindering the whole identification process.…”

“…In the forensic scenario where identification of individuals with identical generic features (e.g., same sex, age, and ancestry) [27,28] is required, there is the need to overcome the usual parameters of the biological profile and to come up with strategies that would facilitate the identification of the remains [17,29]. Komar and Lathrop [27] investigated the frequencies of some pathological features in known skeletal collections and suggested caution in using them as personal identifiers.…”

“…The results drawn from their sample showed that even when multiple fractures, pathological conditions, and surgical procedures are taken into account, they are common and therefore of limited use to ascertain a tentative match (if the features' presence/absence alone is taken into consideration and compared with known frequencies in a reference group). Similarly, Cappella et al [29] tested the abovementioned approach on individuals of the same collection as this study, identifying common and less common features that may provide guidance for the search of AM information. Within this research avenue, the use of other morphological features of the skeleton for personal identification can be investigated.…”

“…However, the observations would not be based on morphological comparison of skeletal [3,19] or dental [32,33] structures, rather on the evaluation of clinical information, calculation of compound probabilities, and comparison with data from known populations, in a similar fashion to identifications based on genetic profiles. Establishing the frequency of skeletal features (e.g., trauma, pathologies, variants) is essential before they can be deemed individualizing and used to calculate probabilities of identity [29,34]. Watamaniuk and Rogers [35] applied this approach to the morphology of the thoracic vertebral margin.…”

“…Collection and comparison of PM and AM data may be hampered by several factors. As already mentioned, limited availability of relevant AM information may be related to inaccessible infrastructures, warfare or natural disasters, or because the victims could not access healthcare in their lifetime [2,27,29]. Moreover, these observations are based solely on the 100 individuals of the sample.…”