Disaster Victims’ Identification

Abstract

Identification of people is a fundamental necessity that must be done personally, socially, legally, and humanely for the verification of death. The process of identifying victims in far-reaching disasters is linked to the combination of a variety of factors. Worldwide DVI operations mainly follow the INTERPOL DVI Guide. The INTERPOL DVI Guide provides a framework for managing mass death events, however, does not specifically address issues related to events with a large number of fragmented human remains. Events involving severely fragmented, burned, or mixed human remains present complex logistical, practical and ethical challenges that can extend the DVI operation and even completely prevent the identification of some individuals. The stages to be followed in search, rescue, and identification studies have been investigated in events with a lot of fragmented human remains. Since the nature of each disaster is different, a flexible and appropriate plan should be developed in a DVI operation without adhering to strict rules.

Keywords

• Forensic science
• identification
• disaster victims
• interpol.

Felaket Kurbanlarının Kimliklendirilmesi

Abstract

İnsanların kimliklendirilmesi ölümün doğrulanması için kişisel, toplumsal, hukuki ve insani olarak yapılması gereken temel bir zorunluluktur. Geniş kapsamlı felaketlerde kurbanların kimliklendirilmesi süreci birçok faktörün bileşimi ile bağlantılıdır. Dünya çapında DVI işlemleri esas olarak INTERPOL DVI Kılavuzunu takip eder. INTERPOL DVI Kılavuzu, toplu ölüm olaylarını yönetmek için bir çerçeve sağlar, ancak özellikle çok sayıda parçalanmış insan kalıntısı olan olaylarla ilgili sorunları ele almaz. Ciddi şekilde parçalanmış, yanmış veya birbirine karışmış insan kalıntılarının bulunduğu olaylar, DVI operasyonunu uzatabilecek ve hatta bazı bireylerin tanımlanmasını tamamen engelleyebilecek karmaşık lojistik, pratik ve etik zorluklar ortaya koymaktadır. Bu derleme makalede felaket kurbanlarının kimliklendirilmesi alanında literatür incelenmiş, kurbanların kimliklendirilmesi sürecini zorlaştıracak sorunların çözümü için çözüm yolları ve Çok fazla parçalanmış insan kalıntılarının olduğu olaylarda arama kurtarma ve kimliklendirme çalışmalarında izlenecek aşamalar araştırılmıştır. Her felaketin doğası farklı olduğu için bir dvi operasyonunda katı kurallara bağlı kalmadan esnek ve olayın doğasına uygun bir plan geliştirilmesi gerekmektedir.

Keywords

• Adli bilimler
• kimliklendirme
• felaket kurbanları
• interpol.

References

1. Ağır M, Erkol B. Kayıp veya Kimliği Belirsiz Şahıslar İçin Kriminalistik Yaklaşımlar. In: Hanci İH, VUral O, editors. Adli Bilimler ve Kriminalistik Ansiklopedisi (Basım aşamasında).
2. De Boer HH, Roberts J, Delabarde T, Mundorff AZ, Blau S. Disaster victim identification operations with fragmented, burnt, or commingled remains: experience-based recommendations. Forensic Sciences Research 2020, VOL. 5, NO. 3, 191–201 https://doi.org/10.1080/20961790.2020.1751385
3. INTERPOL. Disaster victim identification guide. Lyon (France): INTERPOL; 2018.
4. Cordner S, Ellingham S. Two halves make a whole: both first responders and experts are needed for the management and identification of the dead in large disasters. Forensic Sci Int. 2017;279:60–64.
5. O’Donnell C, Iino M, Mansharan K, et al. Contribution of postmortem multidetector CT scanning to identification of the deceased in a mass disaster: experience gained from the 2009 Victorian bushfires. Forensic Sci Int. 2011;205:15–28.
6. Iino M, Aoki Y. The use of radiology in the Japanese tsunami DVI process. J Forensic Radiol Imaging. 2016;4:20–26.
7. Brough A, Morgan B, Rutty G. Postmortem computed tomography (PMCT) and disaster victim identification. Radiol Med. 2015;120:866– 873.
8. Leetaru K. How drones are changing humanitarian disaster response. 2015. Available from: https://www.forbes.com/sites/ kalevleetaru/2015/11/09/howdrones-are-changing-humanitarian-disaster-response/ #6f967c79310c

9. Tanzi TJ, Chandra M, Isnard J, et al. Towards “droneborne” disaster management: future application scenarios. ISPRS Annals of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences; 2016 Jul 12–19; Prague (Czech Republic): XXIII ISPRS Congress. doi: 10.5194/isprs-annals-III-8-181-2016
10. Shipman P, Foster G, Schoeninger M. Burnt bones and teeth: an experimental study of color, morphology, crystal structure and shrinkage. J Archaeolog Sci. 1984;11:307–325.
11. Buikstra JE, Swegle M. Bone modification due to burning: experimental evidence. In: Bone modification. Orono (MN): University of Maine; 1989. p. 247–258.
12. Symes SA, Rainwater CW, Chapman EN, et al. Patterned thermal destruction of human remains in a forensic setting. In: The analysis of burned human remains. Cambridge (MA): Elsevier; 2008. p. 15–54. 200 H. H. de BOER ET AL.
13. Gonc¸alves D, Thompson TJ, Cunha E. Implications of heat-induced changes in bone on the interpretation of funerary behaviour and practice. J Archaeolog Sci. 2011;38:1308–1313
14. Imaizumi K, Taniguchi K, Ogawa Y. DNA survival and physical and histological properties of heatinduced alterations in burnt bones. Int J Legal Med. 2014;128:439–446.
15. Mundorff AZ. Anthropologist-directed triage: three distinct mass fatality events involving fragmentation of human remains. In: Adams BJ, Byrd JE, editors. Recovery, Analysis, and Identification of Commingled Human Remains. Oxford (UK): Elsevier Science; 2014. p. 363–386
16. De Boer HH, Blau S, Delabarde T, et al. The role of forensic anthropology in disaster victim identification (DVI): recent developments and future prospects. Forensic Sci Res. 2019;4:303–313.
17. Indriati E. Forensic anthropological roles in disaster victim identification of two Jakarta Hotels’s bomb blasts. Damianus J Med. 2014;13:148–157.
18. Marquez-Grant N. The increasing role of the forensic anthropologist in the search for the missing. In: Multidisciplinary approaches to forensic archaeology. Cham (Switzerland): Springer; 2018. p. 77–91.
19. Mundorff AZ. Integrating forensic anthropology into disaster victim identification. Forensic Sci Med Pathol. 2012;8:131–139.
20. INTERPOL. Annexure 17: roles and responsibilities of the forensic anthropologist. INTERPOL DVI guide. 2018. Available from: https:// www.INTERPOL.int/How-we-work/Forensics/DisasterVictim- Identification-DVI Leditschke J, Collett S, Ellen R. Mortuary operations in the aftermath of the 2009 Victorian bushfires. Forensic Sci Int. 2011;205:8–14.
21. De Boer HH, Maat GJ, Kadarmo DA, et al. DNA identification of human remains in Disaster Victim Identification (DVI): an efficient sampling method for muscle, bone, bone marrow and teeth. Forensic Sci Int. 2018;289:253–259
22. Simpson EK, James RA, Eitzen DA, et al. Role of orthopedic implants and bone morphology in the identification of human remains. J Forensic Sci. 2007;52:442–448.
23. Smith O, Pope EJ, Symes SA. Look until you see: identification of trauma in skeletal material. In: Hard evidence: case studies in forensic anthropology. Old Tappan (NJ): Pearson Education; 2003. p. 138–154.
24. Nawrocki SP, Latham KE, Bartelink EJ. Human skeletal variation and forensic anthropology. In: New perspectives in forensic human skeletal identification. Cambridge (MA): Elsevier; 2018. p. 5–11.
25. Antinick TC, Foran DR. Intra- and inter-element variability in mitochondrial and nuclear DNA from fresh and environmentally exposed skeletal remains. J Forensic Sci. 2019;64:88–97.
26. Edson SM. Extraction of DNA from skeletonized postcranial remains: a discussion of protocols and testing modalities. J Forensic Sci. 2019;64:1312–1323.
27. Higgins D, Austin JJ. Teeth as a source of DNA for forensic identification of human remains: a review. Sci Justice. 2013;53:433–441.
28. Johnston E, Stephenson M. DNA profiling success rates from degraded skeletal remains in Guatemala. J Forensic Sci. 2016;61:898– 902.
29. Mundorff AZ, Davoren J, Weitz S. Developing an empirically based ranking order for bone sampling: examining the differential DNA yield rates between human skeletal elements over increasing post mortem intervals. Washington, DC: Department of Justice; 2013.
30. Startari L, Benoit J-N, Quatrehomme G, et al. Comparison of extractable DNA from bone following six-month exposure to outdoor conditions, garden loam, mold contamination or room storage. Med Sci Law. 2013;53:29–32.
31. Prinz M, Carracedo A, Mayr W, et al. DNA Commission of the International Society for Forensic Genetics (ISFG): recommendations regarding the role of forensic genetics for disaster victim identification (DVI). Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2007;1:3–12.
32. Hines DZ, Vennemeyer M, Amory S, et al. Prioritized sampling of bone and teeth for DNA analysis in commingled cases. In: Commingled human remains. Cambridge (MA): Elsevier; 2014. p. 275–305.
33. Mundorff A, Davoren JM. Examination of DNA yield rates for different skeletal elements at increasing post mortem intervals. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2014;8:55–63.
34. Hartman D, Drummer O, Eckhoff C, et al. The contribution of DNA to the disaster victim identification (DVI) effort. Forensic Sci Int. 2011;205: 52–58.
35. Blau S, Robertson S, Johnstone M. Disaster victim identification: new applications for postmortem computed tomography. J Forensic Sci. 2008;53: 956–961.
36. Blau S, Phillips E, O’Donnell C, et al. Evaluating the impact of different formats in the presentation of trauma evidence in court: a pilot study. Aust J Forensic Sci. 2019;51:695–704.
37. Errickson D, Thompson TJ, Rankin BW. The application of 3D visualization of osteological trauma for the courtroom: a critical review. J Forensic Radiol Imaging. 2014;2:132–137.