Reliability and Significance of Forensic Anthropology in Personal Identification in Comparison with DNA Profiling Technique in South Indian Population Using Case Studies
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.48165/Keywords:
DNA profiling, decomposed humanAbstract
Identification of a decomposed dead body is a universal problem for police agencies in all countries. The method of identification relied on in a country may vary based on the established identification techniques in its forensic sciences laboratories. The DNA profiling and the skull-photograph superimposition (SPS) are the two techniques employed in forensic laboratories to identify the decomposed human heads recovered from scenes of crime. While identification through DNA profiling is unambiguous and hence conclusive, SPS seem to provide only a probable opinion. Hence, SPS technique is considered only second to DNA profiling due to its inability to establish ‘matchless’ identity. For instance, similarities of the facial features of the victim to his/her siblings and close relatives pose a major challenge in conclusively establishing the identity of the victim. Since the Court of Law admits only conclusive evidences rather than probable opinions, experts from Forensic Anthropology Unit in forensic science laboratories often face difficult situations defending results based on SPS techniques. Though it might appear as if DNA profiling would fulfil the requirements of identification in all the cases, it is not so in many instances. In many vital cases, DNA profiling has also failed in providing corroborative evidence. This paper highlights the significance of Forensic Anthropology Unit by exploring its definite role in the identification of victims in various cases in different situations with case studies.
Downloads
References
1. Austin-Smith D and Maples WR. The reliability of skull/ photograph superimposition in individual identification. J Forensic Sci 1994; 39: 446-55.
2. Butler JM. Forensic DNA typing (Biology, Technology and Genetics of STR markers) 2nd Edn., Elsevier Academic Press, 2005: p-3.
3. Chandrasekharan P. A revised superimposition technique for identification of the individual from the skull and photograph. J Criminal Law Criminology Police Sci 1971; 62(1): 107-13.
4. Chandrasekharan P. A Scientific method for positioning of the skull for photography in superimposition studies. J Police Sci Admin 1973; 1: 232-40.
5. Chandrasekharan P. Identification of Skull from its suture pattern. Forensic Sci. International 1985; 27: 205-214.
6. Chandrasekharan P. The problems of positioning skulls for video superimposition technique. Can Soc Forensic Sci J 1989; 22: 21-25.
7. Dorion RBJ. Photographic superimposition. J Forensic Sci 1983; 28(3); 724-34.
8. Ferris JAJ, Stockdale RE. The Bluebell Woods case: a problem of Identification. J Forensic Sci Soc 1972; 12: 339-345.
9. Francis EC (ed). Gradwohl’s Legal Medicine, 2nd Edition, John Wright & Sons Ltd., Bristol, 1968: p-15.
10. Gatliff BP. Facial sculpture on the skull for identification. Am J Forensic Med Pathol 1984; 5: 327-32.
11. Gerjvall NG, Johanson G. Solving a mystery death. OSSA: J Skeletal Res 1976; 3: 169-81.
12. Gerjvall NG. Superimposition. Plus SEM – comparison of hair cuticle for identification purposes OSSA: J Skeletal Res 1974; 1:96-9.
13. Gerjvall NG. Unexpected identification, OSSA: J Skeletal Res 1975; 2: 69-70.
14. Ghosh AK, Sinha P. An unusual case of Cranial Image recognition. Forensic Sci International 2005; 148: 93-100.
15. Ghosh AK, Sinha P. An economised craniofacial identification systems. Forensic Sci International 2001; 117: 109-119.
16. Glaister J, Brash JC. Medico-legal aspects of the Ruxton Case. Baltimore: William Wood and Co; 1937.
17. Gordon GM, Steyn M. An investigation into the accuracy and reliability of skull- photo superimposition in a South African sample. Forensic Sci International 2012; 216: 198.e1-198.e6.
18. Gruner O. The identification of Skulls: historical review and practical application. Proceedings of the advances in skull identification via video superimposition: An international symposium and workshop. Kiel, West Germany. August; 1988.
19. Janssens PA, Hansch CF, Voorhamme LL. Identity determination by superimposition with anthropological cranium adjustment. OSSA: J Skeletal Res 1978; 5: 109-22.
20. Jayaprakash PT, Srinivasan GJ, Amaravaneswaran MG. Cranio facial morphanalysis: a new method for enhancing reliability while identifying skulls by photo superi-mposition. Forensic Sci International 2001; 117: 121-43.
21. Jayaprakash PT, Bhupinder Singh, Ridzuan Abd Aziz Mohd Yusop, Hetty Susilawati Asmuni. Skull-Photo Superim position: A Remedy to the Problem of Unidentified Dead in Malaysia. Malaysian Forensic Sci 2010; 1:
22. Jayaprakash PT. Cranio- facial morphanalysis: A new method to enhance reliability in Forensic identification of skull by photo-superimposition; An analysis on the preadolescent permanence of suture patterns, Thesis submitted to the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy - University of Madras, September; 2001.
23. Jayaprakash PT. Skull Sutures: radiographic contour of Wormian bone as an individualising epigenetic marker. Can Soc Forensic Sci 1997; 30: 39-47.
24. Koelmeyar TD. Video Camera Superimposition and Facial Rreconstruction as an Aid to Identification. Am J Forensic Med Pathol 1982; 3: 45-48.
25. Krogman WM, Iscan MY (eds). The Human Skeleton in Forensic Medicine, Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, IL, 1986: p-413-57 & 530.
26. Law FM. Roentgenograms as a means of identification. Am J Surg 1934; 26:195-198.
27. McKenna JJI, Jablonski NG, Fernhead RW. A method of matching skulls with photographic portraits using landmarks and measurements of the dentition. J Forensic Sci 1984; 29(3): 787-97.
28. Mckenna JJI. A method of orientation of skull and camera for use in forensic Photographic investigations. J Forensic Sci 1988; 33(3): 751-5.
29. Michael Bowers C. The use of Digital imaging in Human Identification, In Forensic Dental Evidence: An Investigator’s Hand Book. 1st Edn; Elsevier Academic Press: California, USA. 2004; p-177.
30. Prinsloo I. The identification of Skeletal remains in Regina versus K and another: The Howick Falls Murder Case. J Forensic Med 1953; 1: 11-17.
31. Pushparani C, Ravichandran C P, Sivakumari K. Radiography Superimposition in Personal Identification – A Case Study Involving Surgical Implants. J Forensic Res 2012; 3: 140.doi:10.4172/2157-7145.1000140.
32. Reddy KSN. Identification of dismembered parts: the medicolegal aspects of the Nagaraju case. Forensic Sci 1973; 2: 351-74.
33. Rhine JS, Campbell HR. Thickness of facial tissues in American Blacks. J Forensic Sci 1980; 25: 847-58.
34. Schimmer JB, Helmer RP, Rieger J. Craniometric Individuality of human Skulls, In: Iscan M.Y, Helmer RP.editors. Forensic analysis of skull- craniofacial analysis, reconstruction, and identification. Wiely Liss Inc., New York, USA; 1993: p- 89- 96.
35. Seta S, Yoshino MA. A combined apparatus for photographic and video superimposition, In: Iscan MY, Helmer RP (ed). Forensic Analysis of the Skull- Craniofacial Analysis, Reconstructions and Identification, Wiely Liss Inc., New York, USA; 1993: p-161-69.
36. Webster WP, Murray WK, Brinkhous W, Hudson P. Identification of human remains using photographic reconstruction, In: JR Kathleen (Ed.), Forensic Osteology: Advances in the Identification of Human Remains, Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, 1986: p- IL256-289.
37. Whittakar DK, Mac Donald DG. A Colour Atlas of Forensic Dentistry, Wolf Medical Publications Ltd., London, 1989: p 94-97.
38. Yoshino M, Imaizumi K, Miyasaka S, Seta S. Evaluation of Anatomical Consistency in Cranio-facial Superimposition Images. Forensic Sci International 1995; 74: 125-134.
