Forensic Anthropology

• Author: Tracy Rogers
• Pages: 324-380

324

A. OVERVIEW OF THE DISCIPLINE: FORENSIC ANTHROPOLOGY

The def‌inition of forensic anthropology has changed over the years to re-

f‌lect its maturation from a specialized branch of biological anthropology,

focusing primarily on the identif‌ication of anonymous human remains, to

an independent subf‌ield with its own body of theory, research paradigms,

and goals.1 Depending on the source, the country of origin, and the year

of the publication, forensic anthropology will be variously def‌ined with an

emphasis on: (1) the skeleton; (2) identif‌ication; and, most recently, (3)

the life, death, and post-life history of an individual, reconstructed from

analyzing their skeletal remains and the context in which they are locat-

ed.2 The latter def‌inition is less concrete, but is more inclusive and better

ref‌lects the Canadian experience.

In practice, forensic anthropologists work with police to search for

bodies, body parts, and graves in forensic contexts. They recover human re-

mains from a wide variety of scenes in which the condition of the body and

the process of extraction could result in damage or loss of evidence if not re-

covered using specif‌ic protocols (e.g., from f‌ires, burials, wells, septic tanks,

culverts). Once the remains are recovered, forensic anthropologists con-

1 Debra Komar & Jane Buikstra, Forensic Anthropology: Contemporary Theory and Prac-

tice (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008).

2 Dennis C. Dirkmaat et al., “New Perspectives in Forensic Anthropology” (2008) 51

American Journal of Physical Anthropology 33.

CHAPTER 11

Forensic Anthropology

Tracy Rogers

LEgAL ConTExT: CAiTLin PAkosH

Forensic Anthropology 6 325

duct a skeletal examination to determine who the person was (the biological

prof‌ile), the circumstances of death (the trauma analysis), and the sequence

of events surrounding and subsequent to the death (the taphonomy).

Although forensic anthropologists obtain information from the skel-

eton and its context, there are two caveats to the above def‌inition:

1) The person being examined may still be alive. Computerized tomog-

raphy (CT) scans or other imaging modalities can be used to visualize

the skeleton, allowing a forensic anthropologist to estimate the age of

the individual. Such situations occur when formal documentation is

missing due to war, disaster, political circumstances, and so on.

2) In the case of deceased persons, the body may not be skeletonized

when recovered, but may instead be unrecognizable as a result of de-

composition, burial practices, or damage. The body will be examined

through CT or radiographic imaging, followed by removal of the soft

tissues to facilitate skeletal analysis.

The scope of a forensic anthropological case can include one individ-

ual, a mass fatality (e.g., train derailment and f‌ire, as in Lac-Mégantic), or

serial murders (e.g., the Pickton case). The importance of context to the

interpretation of the skeletal analysis, the continuity of evidence, and the

need for specialized knowledge during f‌ield search and recovery means

that, in Canada and the United States, scene work, including excavation,

is completed by the forensic anthropologist. There is no separate disci-

pline of “forensic archaeology” because continuity from scene to morgue

is highly valued from both an interpretative and evidentiary perspective.

When called to court, the two most common subjects of forensic

anthropological testimony are identity and trauma analysis (e.g., injury

number, type, pattern, potential causes, weapon type). An examination

of forensic anthropological testimony in the United States3 indicates that,

of the 367 instances of forensic anthropological expert testimony listed,

40% related to trauma, 19% related to biological prof‌ile or victim identif‌i-

cation, and 11% related to the post-mortem interval. In the United States,

there were ninety-nine cases between 2010 and 2013 in which the issu-

ing judge referenced forensic anthropological testimony.4 Since the 1993

3 This examination was conducted using LexisNexis Academic proprietary legal data-

base and Daubert Tracker, a fee-based expert witness database.

4 Kate M. Lesciotto, “The Impact of Daubert on the Admissibility of Forensic Anthro-

pology Expert Testimony” (2015) 60 Journal of Forensic Sciences 549.

326 6 Tracy Rogers

Daubert5 decision, there have been at least sixteen cases in the United

States in which the admissibility of forensic anthropological testimony

was questioned. All but one was deemed admissible. Such data is not read-

ily available in Canada, although Skinner and colleagues provide a table of

self-reported casework (as of June 2006) in which nine forensic anthro-

pologists state they have appeared in court anywhere from one to thirteen

times.6 An additional sixteen others report doing casework, but do not

specify court appearances.

Lesciotto concludes that an attorney’s failure to comprehend forensic

anthropological testimony and its scientif‌ic validity may explain why there

have been so few challenges, despite the increased amount of forensic an-

thropological testimony in the courtroom.7 An alternate interpretation of

the data relates to developments in the f‌ield itself. Since 2000, forensic

anthropologists have made a concerted ef‌fort to be proactive in standard-

izing and validating their methodology in accordance with the Daubert8

decision in the United States and the Mohan9 ruling in Canada in order to

prevent rulings of inadmissibility. The goal of this chapter is to ensure that

low rates of Mohan challenges to forensic anthropological evidence in the

future will be the result of high-quality forensic anthropological analyses,

rather than failure on the part of lawyers to understand this f‌ield.

B. THE SCIENCE OF FORENSIC ANTHROPOLOGY

There are many scientif‌ic principles incorporated into a forensic an-

thropological analysis depending on how, and in what state, the body has

been discovered. Police may involve a forensic anthropologist in an inves-

tigation when searching for bodies or graves, and recovering bodies from

graves (and wells, f‌ires, etc.). The coroner, medical examiner, or patholo-

gist may call upon the forensic anthropologist to examine the body itself.

A case may begin with a tip to police that someone was murdered and

dumped in the woods, followed by the police contacting a forensic an-

thropologist requesting assistance in the search for a body or grave. In the

5 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) [Daubert].

6 Mark Skinner & Kristina Bowie, “Forensic Anthropology: Canadian Content and

Contributions” in Soren Blau and Douglas Ubelaker, eds., Handbook of Forensic An-

thropology and Archaeology (Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press, 2009) 87.

7 Lesciotto, above note 4.

8 Daubert, above note 5.

9 R. v. Mohan, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 9.