Search

A mass disaster is commonly construed as an event (air, naval, railway, or motorway accident, flooding, earthquake, and so on), resulting in a large number of victims that need to be identified and subject to medicolegal investigation. Furthermore, depending on which continent one comes from, innumerous protocols and procedures are available, the Interpol Disaster Victim Identification form being the most frequently used one in Europe. Whatever the case may be, the procedure is the same, and it consists of a meticulous collection of both antemortem and postmortem data. Consequently, the identification modalities to be applied will vary according to the quality of the antemortem data available and preservation conditions of the victims. This chapter gives general guidelines, common to most protocols, for the management—strictly from a medicolegal point of view—of victims of a mass disaster. As mentioned, intervention protocols may differ greatly depending on the country in which the disaster occurs; furthermore, medicolegal intervention in a mass disaster is dependant on local authorities, such as the magistrate's court, the police, local health authorities, and so forth. These authorities decide, in many countries, what should be done and when. For this reason, it is always wise for medicolegal services and departments to create (ahead of time) contacts and connections with local authorities in order to avoid a confused conduction of the emergency. At the scene of the accident or disaster, when conditions allow it, medicolegal staff should contribute to the recording of victims' position and condition just as at any "normal" scene of crime situation, although time constraints must be respected. Once the remains have been removed from the disaster site, the bodies should be brought to a morgue for medicolegal activity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Personal identification is a field where pathology, anthropology, odontology, and even genetics must merge. Specific features and descriptors (such as scars, moles, gross anomalies) may be sufficient for identification. However, in more complex cases, four main disciplines are involved in the identification of human remains: DNA, fingerprint analysis, odontology, and anthropology (or better yet, osteology). Genetic and fingerprinting methods give a quantitative result, or at least statistics have been performed on the specific traits studied, which allow one to answer in a quantitative manner on the probability of two individuals having similar characteristics in the first case, for the distribution of different alleles within a population, and in the second, for the frequency of minutiae on the finger. Forensic anthropology and odontology methods, which compare the status and shape of teeth and bones, are valid alternative methods. Methods include comparison of dental work, bone, and tooth morphology, in particular frontal sinus patterns, and craniofacial superimposition. They are advantageous methods because faster and less costly; however, they may suffer, in the view of some judges, from the qualitative and nonquantitative responses they give. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]