Post Mortem Anthropology and Trauma Analysis

  • Cristina Cattaneo
  • Annalisa Cappella
  • Eugenia Cunha
Chapter

Abstract

Skeletal trauma remains one of the most challenging issues in forensic anthropology. Whether one is looking at skeletal remains or even well preserved cadavers, forensic anthropology and osteology may be the key disciplines by which to define the weapon used to produce a lesion or date a bone callus. If we omit radiology, which is a forensic discipline per se, the tools with which novel research is being performed are still macroscopic and stereoscopic observation, decalcified and non-decalcified thin section microscopy, and scanning electron microscopy with edx. The following paragraphs represent a brief summary of these events and the status quo, with particular focus on timing.

References

  1. 1.
    Brighton CT, Hunt RM (1991) Early histological and ultra structural changes in medullary fracture callus. J Bone Jt Surg 73(6):832–847CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Buckwalter JA, Einhorn TA, Bolander ME, Crusess RL (1996) Healing of musculoskeletal tissue. In: Rockwood CA, Green DP, Bucholz RW, Heckman JD (eds) Fracture in adults, 4th edn. Lippincott-Raven, Philadelphia, pp 267–283Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pechníková M, Mazzarelli D, Poppa P, Gibelli D, Scossa Baggi E, Cattaneo C (2015) Microscopic pattern of bone fractures as an indicator of blast trauma: a pilot study. J Forensic Sci 60(5):1140–1145. doi: 10.1111/1556-4029.12818CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Porta D, Amadasi A, Cappella A, Mazzarelli D, Magli F, Gibelli D, Rizzi A, Picozzi M, Gentilomo A, Cattaneo C (2016) Dismemberment and disarticulation: a forensic anthropological approach. J Forensic Legal Med 38:50–57. doi: 10.1016/j.jflm.2015.11.016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    William PL, Warwick R, Dyson M et al (1989) Gray’s anatomy. In: The response of bone to injury, 37th edn. Churchill Livingstone, Philadelphia, pp 313–315 Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Shipman P (1981) Applications of scanning electron microscopy to taphonomic problems. Ann NY Acad Sci 276:357–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pechnikova M, Porta D, Mazzarelli D, Rizzi A, Drozdova E, Gibelli D, Cattaneo C (2012) Detection of metal residues on bone using SEM-EDS. Part I: blunt force injury. Forensic Sci Int 223:87–90CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Amadasi A, Gibelli D, Mazzarelli D, Porta D, Gaudio D, Salsarola D, Brandone A, Rizzi A, Cattaneo C (2015) Assets and pitfalls of chemical and microscopic analysis on gunshot residues in skeletonized bodies: a report of five cases. Int J Leg Med 129(4):819–824CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Amadasi A, Borgonovo S, Brandone A, Di Giancamillo M, Cattaneo C (2014) A comparison between digital radiography, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance in the detection of gunshot residues in burnt tissues and bone. J Forensic Sci 59(3):712–717. doi: 10.1111/1556-4029.12304CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gibelli D, Mazzarelli D, Porta D, Rizzi A, Cattaneo C (2012) Detection of metal residues on bone using SEM-EDS-Part II: sharp force injury. Forensic Sci Int 223:91–96CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Amadasi A, Borgonovo S, Brandone A, Di Giancamillo M, Cattaneo C (2012) The survival of metallic residues from gunshot wounds in cremated bone: a radiological study. Int J Legal Med 126(3):363–369. doi: 10.1007/s00414-011-0633-yCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Amadasi A, Gibelli D, Mazzarelli D, Porta D, Gaudio D, Salsarola D, Brandone A, Rizzi A, Cattaneo C (2015) Assets and pitfalls of chemical and microscopic analyses on gunshot residues in skeletonized bodies: a report of five cases. Int J Legal Med 129(4):819–824. doi: 10.1007/s00414-014-1107-9CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Amadasi A, Brandone A, Rizzi A, Mazzarelli D, Cattaneo C (2012) The survival of metallic residues from gunshot wounds in cremated bone: a SEM-EDX study. Int J Legal Med 126:525–531CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Berryman HE, Kutyla AK, Russell DJ (2010) Detection of gunshot primer residues on bone in an experimental setting-an unexpected finding. J Forensic Sci 55:488–491CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Vermeij EJ, Zoon PD, Chang SB, Keereweer I, Pieterman R, Gerretsen RR (2012) Analysis of microtraces in invasive traumas using SEM/EDS. Forensic Sci Int 214:96–104CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Taborelli A, Gibelli D, Rizzi A, Andreola S, Brandone A, Cattaneo C (2012) Gunshot residues on dry bone after decomposition: a pilot study. J Forensic Sci 57:1281–1284CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Doblaré M, Garcıa JM, Gómez MJ (2004) Modelling bone tissue fracture and healing: a review. Eng Fract Mech 71(13):1809–1840CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rodan GA (1992) Introduction to bone biology. Bone 13(1):S3–S6CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Erlebacher A, Filvaroff EH, Gitelman SE, Derynck R (1995) Toward a molecular understanding of skeletal development. Cell 80:371–378CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dimitriou R, Tsiridis E, Giannoudis PV (2005) Current concepts of molecular aspects of bone healing. Inj Int J Care Inj 36:1392–1404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Prosser I, Maguire S, Harrison SK, Mann M, Sibert JR, Kemp AM (2005) How old is this fracture? Radiologic dating of fractures in children: a systematic review. Am J Roentgenol 184(4):1282–1286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hendrix RW (2002) Fracture Healing. In: Rogers LF (ed) Radiology of skeletal trauma, 3rd edn. Churchill Livingstone, Philadelphia, pp 203–230Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hufnagl K (2005) An Investigation of time since injury: a radiographic study of fracture healing. A Thesis. http://etd.lsu.edu/docs/available/etd-07082005-102907/unrestricted/Hufnagl_thesis.pdf. Accessed 16 Nov 2016
  24. 24.
    Einhorn TA (1998) The cell and molecular biology of fracture healing. Clin Orthop 35(5S):7–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Heppenstall RB (1980) Fracture healing. In: Heppenstall RB (ed) Fracture treatment and healing. Saunders, pp 41–64Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Collins DH (1966) Pathology of bone. Butterworths, LondonGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Frost MD (1989) The biology of fracture healing. An overview for Clinicians. Part 1. Clin Orthoped Relat Res 248:283–923Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Toal RL, Mitchell SK (2002) Fracture healing and complications. In: Thrall DE (ed) Textbook of veterinary diagnostic radiology, 4th edn. WB Saunders Co, Philadelphia p, pp 161–178Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Todd TW, Iler DH (1927) The phenomena of early stages in bone repair. Ann Surg 86(5):715–736CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Philips AM (2005) Overview of the fracture healing cascade. Inj Int J Care Inj 36:s5–s7Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Vigorita VJ (2009) Orthopedic pathology. Lippincott-Williams and Wilkins, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Barbian LT, Sledzik PS (2008) Healing following cranial trauma. J Forensic Sci 53(2):263–268CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Maat GJR (2008) Dating of fractures in human dry bone tissue. The Berisha case. In: Kimmerle E, Baraybar JP (eds) Identification of traumatic skeletal injuries resulting from human rights abuses and armed conflicts. Taylor and Francis Group, Boca Raton, FL, pp 245–254Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Maat GJR, Huls N (2010) Histological fracture dating on fresh and dried bone tissue. In: Bilo RAC, Robben SGF, van RiJn RR (eds) Forensic aspects of pediatric fractures. Differentiating accidental trauma from child abuse. Springer, Berlin, pp 194–201Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    De Boer HH, van der Merwe AE, Hammer S, Steyn M, Maat GJR (2012) Assessing post-traumatic time interval in human dry bone. Int J Osteoarchaeology. doi: 10.1002/oa.2267Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Steyn M, De Boer HH, van der Merwe AE (2014) Cranial trauma and the assessment of posttraumatic survival time. Forensic Sci Int 244:e25–e29CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ortner D (2008) Differential diagnosis of skeletal injuries. In: Kimmerle EH, Baraybar JP (eds) Skeletal trauma: identification of injuries resulting from human rights abuse and armed conflict. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp 21–93Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ubelaker DH (1997) Taphonomic applications in forensic anthropology. In: Haglund WD, Sorg MH (eds) Forensic taphonomy: the postmortem fate of human remains. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 77–90Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Sauer N (1998) The timing of injuries and manner of death: distinguishing among antemortem, perimortem and postmortem trauma. In: Reichs K (ed) Forensic osteology, advances in the identification of human remains, 2nd edn. Charles C Thomas Publisher LTD, SpringfieldGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Wieberg DAM, Wescott DJ (2008) Estimating the timing of long bone fractures: correlation between the postmortem interval, bone moisture content, and blunt force trauma characteristics. J Forensic Sci 53(5):1028–1034PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Evans FG (1957) Stress and strain in bones. Charles C. Thomas, SpringfieldGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Galloway A (1999) The biomechanics of fracture production. In: Galloway A (ed) Broken bones: anthropological analysis of blunt force trauma. Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, pp 117–118Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Johnson E (1985) Current developments in bone technology. Adv Archaeol Method Theor 8:157–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Dirkmaat DC, Cabo LL, Ousley SD, Symes SA (2008) New perspectives in forensic anthropology. Am J Phys Anthropol 51:33–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Moraitis K, Eliopoulos C, Spiliopoulou C (2009) Fracture characteristics of perimortem trauma in skeletal material. Internet J Biol Anthropol 3(2):1–3Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Symes SA, L’abbé EN, Stull KE, Lacroix M, Pokines JT (2014) Taphonomy and the timing of bone fractures in trauma analysis. In: Pokines JT, Symes SA (eds) Manual of forensic taphonomy. CRC Press, Boca Raton pp 341–365Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Ubelaker DH (1991) Perimortem and postmortem modification of human bone. Lessons from forensic anthropology. Antropologie 29:171–174Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Galloway A, Symes SA, Haglund WD et al (1999) The role of forensic anthropology in trauma analysis. In: Galloway A (ed) Broken bones: anthropological analysis of blunt force trauma. Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, pp 5–31Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Karr LP, Outram AK (2012) Tracking changes in bone fracture morphology over time: environment, taphonomy, and the archaeological record. J Archaeol Sci 39(2):555–559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Ubelaker DH, Adams BJ (1995) Differentiation of perimortem and postmortem trauma using taphonomic indicators. J Forensic Sci 40(3):509–512PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Villa P, Mahieu E (1991) Breakage patterns of human long bones. J Hum Evol 21:27–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Quatrehomme G, Alunni V (2013) Bone trauma. In: Siegel JA, Saukko PJ (eds) Encyclopedia of forensic science, 2nd edn. Elsevier Science and Technology, Amsterdam, pp 89–96Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Morlan RE (1984) Toward the definition of criteria for the recognition of artificial bone alterations. Quatern Res 22:160–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Cappella A, Amadasi A, Castoldi E, Mazzarelli D, Gaudio D, Cattaneo C (2014) The difficult task of assessing perimortem and post-mortem fractures on the skeleton: a blind test on 210 fractures of known origin. J Forensic Sci 59:1598–1601CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Cappella A, Castoldi E, Sforza C, Cattaneo C (2014) An osteological revisitation of autopsies: comparing anthropological findings in exhumed skeletons to their respective autopsy reports in seven cases. Forensic Sci Int 244:315.e1–315.e10. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2014.09.003
  56. 56.
    Cattaneo C, Andreola S, Marinelli E, Poppa P, Porta D, Grandi M (2010) The detection of microscopic markers of hemorrhaging and wound age on dry bone. Am J Forensic Med Pathol 31(1):22–26CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Cappella A, Bertoglio B, Castoldi E,  Maderna E, Di Giancamillo A, Domeneghini C, Andreola S, Cattaneo C (2015) The taphonomy of blood components in decomposing bone and its relevance to physical anthropology. Am J Phys Anthropol 158(4):636–645Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cristina Cattaneo
    • 1
  • Annalisa Cappella
    • 1
  • Eugenia Cunha
    • 2
  1. 1.LABANOF, Laboratory of Forensic Anthropology and Odontology, Section of Legal Medicine, Department of Biomedical Sciences for HealthUniversity of MilanMilanoItaly
  2. 2.Laboratory of Forensic Anthropology, Department of Life Sciences, Centre of Functional EcologyUniversity of CoimbraCoimbraPortugal

Personalised recommendations