Tuller Hugh, Durić' Marija
Joint POW/MIA Accounting Command, 310 Worchester Ave, Hickam AFB, HI 96853, USA.
Forensic Sci Int. 2006 Jan 27;156(2-3):192-200. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2004.12.033.
Mass graves are a complex and confusing mix of bodies, body parts, soils, artifacts, and other feature evidence. Forensic investigations of these complex crime scenes should attempt to maximize the collection of evidence, which includes the mortal remains, in their best possible condition as they were deposited within the graves. Two standard methods of mass grave excavation were examined with the aim of identifying the better approach. Two experienced teams using different methodologies excavated two separate but very comparable mass graves located in the same area. Single disarticulated skeletal elements not associated with a body at the time of removal from the grave were categorized and their counts analyzed to evaluate the efficiency of the differing excavation methodologies. The methodologies used were the 'pedestal' method, which focuses on the body mass, and the 'stratigraphic' method, in which the grave feature and contents are conjointly excavated. The first grave (Grave A), excavated using the 'pedestal' method, was observed to have a disproportionately larger amount of unassociated bones than did the second (Grave B), which used the 'stratigraphic' method. Chi-square (chi2) goodness-of-fit and contingency tests were performed on the total numbers of recorded elements and different categorical groups of bones, based on size and shape, in each grave. Results demonstrate that significantly greater numbers of unassociated elements resulted from the excavation of Grave A using the pedestal method, both in total number of disarticulated bones as well as within 'large' and 'medium' categories. Conversely 'small' skeletal elements were recovered at a higher rate in Grave B. The lower 'large' and 'medium' bone production rates from Grave B indicate that the stratigraphic method better maintained the provenience and articulation of remains than did Grave A, while the higher 'small' bone recovery rate may point to better recovery techniques of Grave B's excavation team.
乱葬岗是尸体、尸块、土壤、人工制品及其他特征证据的复杂且令人困惑的混合体。对这些复杂犯罪现场的法医调查应尝试尽可能多地收集证据,其中包括遗骸,要尽可能使其处于被埋葬时的最佳状态。研究了两种乱葬岗挖掘的标准方法,目的是确定更好的方法。两个经验丰富的团队采用不同方法挖掘了位于同一区域的两个独立但非常相似的乱葬岗。对从坟墓中取出时与尸体无关的单个分离骨骼元素进行分类,并分析其数量,以评估不同挖掘方法的效率。所使用的方法是专注于尸体质量的“基座”法和联合挖掘坟墓特征及内含物的“地层”法。观察发现,采用“基座”法挖掘的第一个坟墓(A墓)中,与第二个采用“地层”法的坟墓(B墓)相比,不相关骨骼的数量多得不成比例。基于每个坟墓中记录元素的总数以及根据大小和形状划分的不同骨骼类别组,进行了卡方(chi2)拟合优度检验和列联检验。结果表明,使用基座法挖掘A墓时产生的不相关元素数量明显更多,无论是分离骨骼的总数,还是在“大”和“中”类别中。相反,B墓中“小”骨骼元素的回收率更高。B墓中较低的“大”和“中”骨骼产出率表明,地层法比A墓更好地保持了遗骸的出处和关节连接,而较高的“小”骨骼回收率可能表明B墓挖掘团队的回收技术更好。