When human remains are examined,three questions always need to be answered:who is the deceased,what was the cause of death,and when did the death occur,the former question being the most relevant.The identification of...When human remains are examined,three questions always need to be answered:who is the deceased,what was the cause of death,and when did the death occur,the former question being the most relevant.The identification of half or fully skeletonized human remains is a complex process and always requires the use of methods that allow individualization beyond any reasonable doubt.However,no matter how vigorous the search for identification,this is not always achieved.Here,the author presents two cases in which identification was exhaustively attempted but not achieved despite the existence of an osteo implanted device in one case and the presence of documents in the other.In one case,we could not find a potential identity for the deceased,while in the other we found a possible identity but not a family member to provide antemortem data to confirm it.Although the scientific literature tends to favour the publication of cases with favourable outcomes,one should also learn from failures,which is the reason why the author decided to publish his unsuccessful experiences.The reasons for the failures are discussed,as well as methodological improvements for future cases.展开更多
文摘When human remains are examined,three questions always need to be answered:who is the deceased,what was the cause of death,and when did the death occur,the former question being the most relevant.The identification of half or fully skeletonized human remains is a complex process and always requires the use of methods that allow individualization beyond any reasonable doubt.However,no matter how vigorous the search for identification,this is not always achieved.Here,the author presents two cases in which identification was exhaustively attempted but not achieved despite the existence of an osteo implanted device in one case and the presence of documents in the other.In one case,we could not find a potential identity for the deceased,while in the other we found a possible identity but not a family member to provide antemortem data to confirm it.Although the scientific literature tends to favour the publication of cases with favourable outcomes,one should also learn from failures,which is the reason why the author decided to publish his unsuccessful experiences.The reasons for the failures are discussed,as well as methodological improvements for future cases.
