CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 7Forensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology StudiesForensic Entomology and Diptera StudiesAutopsy Techniques and Outcomes

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Bone finds and their medicolegal examination: a study from Hesse, Germany

Open access
Ohlwärther, T. E. N., Holz, F., Edler, K., Kölzer, S. C., Reuss, E., Verhoff, M. A., Birngruber, C. G.·2023·Forensic Science, Medicine and Pathology
DOI 10.1007/s12024-023-00599-1PMC PMC11297073
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Bones found by chance can be of great criminal or historical interest. The nature of their appraisal depends on the individual case, the locally effective legislation and the available resources. To assess whether a find is relevant with respect to criminal investigation, the circumstances of the find and the results of the forensic examination carried out by trained personnel must be considered. The aim of this study was to obtain an overview of the circumstances and nature of the finds as well as the results of the subsequent expert opinions by evaluating bone finds from the federal state of Hesse, Germany. For this purpose, over a 10-year period from 2011 to 2020, all bone finds examined at the Institutes of Legal Medicine in Gießen and Frankfurt am Main, Germany, were evaluated retrospectively with regard to the locations and circumstances of the finds, their nature (human or non-human), the postmortem interval, possible traces of violent impact and the results of further examinations. Of the 288 bone finds evaluated, 38.2% were found in forests, meadows and parks. In 50.7%, the finds contained human bones, of which 37.0% had a forensically relevant postmortem interval of 50 years or less. Evidence of trauma was described in 77.4% of the human bone cases: postmortem damage in 78.8%, peri-mortem injury in 9.7% and ante-mortem injury in 11.5%. DNA examinations were performed in 40.4% of the human bone finds. They yielded STR profiles in 81.3%, leading to a definite identification in 35.4%. Among the non-human bones sent in, the most common were bones from pigs (23.4%), deer (18.1%), cattle (16.4%), roe deer (11.7%) and sheep (11.7%). The macroscopic examination is the first step of the forensic-osteological evaluation and sets the course for further examinations or investigations. DNA examinations are of great importance for the reliable identification of human bones. They were responsible for 70.8% of successful identifications.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s12024-023-00599-1

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A large proportion of forensic cases have a PMI of at least several years.

    “a large pro­ portion of forensic cases have a PMI of at least several years, as shown e. g. by [4,131].”

    From Forensic experiments on animal scavenging: A systematic literature review on what we have and what we need (2023) · cites this paper as [131]

    The Results (Postmortem interval; page unavailable) report that 37.0% of human bone finds in Hesse had a PMI of at least 50 years, supporting the point that a substantial proportion had been dead for many years. The study concerns examined bone finds, however, not forensic cases generally; it does not establish that proportion across all forensic casework. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 50

  1. Ubelaker DH. Human skeletal remains: excavation, analysis, interpretation. 2nd ed. Washington: Taraxacum; 1989.
  2. Verhoff MA, Kreutz K, Ramsthaler F, Schiwy-Bochat K-H. Forensische Anthropologie und Osteologie - Übersicht und Definitionen. Dtsch Ärztebl. 2006;103:782–8.
  3. Garvin HM, Dunn R, Sholts SB, Litten MS, Mohamed M, Kuttickat N, et al. Forensic tools for species identification of skeletal remains: metrics, statistics, and OsteoID. Biology. 2021;11:25. · DOI
  4. Bonicelli A, Mickleburgh HL, Chighine A, Locci E, Wescott DJ, Procopio N. The “ForensOMICS” approach for postmortem interval estimation from human bone by integrating metabolomics, lipidomics, and proteomics. eLife. 2022;11:e83658. · DOI
  5. Ebach SC, Ramsthaler F, Birngruber CG, Verhoff MA. Determining the postmortem interval of bone samples: a comparison of luminol chemiluminescence, Hexagon OBTI test, and Combur test. Arch Kriminol. 2010;226:38–47.
  6. Ebach SC, Ramsthaler F, Birngruber CG, Verhoff MA. Application of the hexagon-OBTI test and the RSID blood test for the determination of the post-mortem interval of bone samples. Arch Kriminol. 2011;228:114–25.
  7. Jellinghaus K, Urban PK, Hachmann C, Bohnert M, Hotz G, Rosendahl W, et al. Collagen degradation as a possibility to determine the post-mortem interval (PMI) of human bones in a forensic context – a survey. Leg Med. 2019;36:96–102. · DOI
  8. Ramsthaler F, Ebach SC, Birngruber CG, Verhoff MA. Postmortem interval of skeletal remains through the detection of intraosseal hemin traces. A comparison of UV-fluorescence, luminol, Hexagon-OBTI®, and Combur® tests. Forensic Sci Int. 2011;209:59–63. · DOI
  9. Verhoff MA, Wiesbrock UO, Kreutz K. Macroscopic findings for the exclusion of a forensic relevant soil embedded resting period in skeletal remains–an approach based upon literature. Arch Kriminol. 2004;213:1–14.
  10. Flieger A, Kölzer SC, Plenzig S, Heinbuch S, Kettner M, Ramsthaler F, et al. Bony injuries in homicide cases (1994–2014). A retrospective study. Int J Legal Med. 2016;130:1401–8. · DOI
  11. Holz F, Birngruber CG, Verhoff MA. Pre- and perimortem bone trauma vs. postmortem damages -- principles of differentiation. Arch Kriminol. 2015;236:51–63.
  12. Veenstra A, Kerkhoff W, Oostra R-J, Galtés I. Gunshot trauma in human long bones: towards practical diagnostic guidance for forensic anthropologists. Forensic Sci Med Pathol. 2022;18:359–67. · DOI · Paper page
  13. Birngruber CG, Kreutz K, Ramsthaler F, Krähahn J, Verhoff MA. Superimposition technique for skull identification with Afloat® software. Int J Legal Med. 2010;124:471–5. · DOI
  14. Birngruber CG, Martinez Peña EG, Holz F. Bodies without names: a global challenge. S Afr Med J. 2020;110:13074. · DOI
  15. Gille R, Ramsthaler F, Thali M, Strunk J, Birngruber CG, Verhoff MA. Stature estimation from teeth and jaw. Arch Kriminol. 2017;239:45–56.
  16. Heidorn F, Birngruber CG, Ramsthaler F, Merz M, Risse M, Kreutz K, et al. The value of skull-photo superimpositions in identifying corpses found in domestic settings. Arch Kriminol. 2011;228:177–90.
  17. Khaleghi M, Memarian A, Shekarchi B, Bagheri H, Maleki N, Safari N. Second and third lumbar vertebral parameters for prediction of sex, height, and age in the Iranian population. Forensic Sci Med Pathol. 2022. Available from: https://link.springer.com/10.1007/s12024-022-00554-6 · DOI
  18. Kolencherry TV, Birngruber CG, Ramsthaler F, Verhoff MA, Kölzer SC. Stature estimation from sagittal and coronal suture lengths for Central European individuals. Arch Kriminol. 2016;237:204–11.
  19. Krešić E, Bašić Ž, Jerković I, Kružić I, Čavka M, Erjavec I. Sex estimation using orbital measurements in the Croatian population. Forensic Sci Med Pathol. 2022 [cited 2023 Jan 10]. Available from: https://link.springer.com/10.1007/s12024-022-00528-8 · DOI
  20. Partido Navadijo M, Alemán AI. Utility of the sternal synostosis for age-at-death estimation in a Mediterranean population. Forensic Sci Med Pathol. 2022;18:423–8. · DOI
  21. Verhoff MA, Schiwy-Bochat K-H, Kreutz K, Witzel C, Huckenbeck W, Ramsthaler F. Das forensisch-osteologische Gutachten – formale Anforderungen aus rechtsmedizinischer Sicht: Empfehlungen der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Forensische Anthropologie der Gesellschaft für Anthropologie (AGFA). Rechtsmedizin. 2009;19:357–61. · DOI
  22. Holz F, Birngruber CG, Verhoff MA. Die forensische Relevanz von Ossuarien – illustriert am Beinhaus von St. Lubentius Rechtsmedizin. 2017;27:87–92. · DOI
  23. Gille RJ, Ribe M, Kreutz K, Weiler G, Verhoff MA. The significance of the legal term “corpse” in forensic medicine. Arch Kriminol. 2006;217:81–91.
  24. Verhoff MA, Klinger MF, Kettner M, Birngruber CG. „Skelettfund“ im Keller. Rechtsmedizin. 2022;32:41–6. · DOI
  25. Rissech C. The importance of human anatomy in forensic anthropology. Eur J Anat. 2021;25:1–18.
  26. Alfsdotter C. Forensic archaeology and forensic anthropology within Swedish law enforcement: current state and suggestions for future developments. Forensic Sci Int Rep. 2021;3:100178. · DOI
  27. Baryah N, Krishan K, Kanchan T. The development and status of forensic anthropology in India: a review of the literature and future directions. Med Sci Law. 2019;59:61–9. · DOI
  28. Clara A, Anja P, Ankin G, Petra M, Rebecka T, Kanar A. Development and implementation of forensic anthropology in Swedish forensic practice. Scand J Forensic Sci. 2022;28:10–9. · DOI
  29. Donlon D. Forensic anthropology in Australia: a brief history and review of casework. Forensic Approaches Death Disaster Abuse. Brisbane: Australian Academic Press; 2008. p. 97–110.
  30. Maijanen H, Seitsonen O. Special issue: forensic anthropology and archaeology in Northern Europe (FAANE) – historical, current and future perspectives. Scand J Forensic Sci. 2022;28:1–2. · DOI
  31. Ubelaker DH. A history of forensic anthropology. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2018;165:915–23. · DOI
  32. Vaswani V, Ahmed MN. Forensic anthropology education and training in India. Med Sci Law. 2020;60:83–4. · DOI
  33. Villa C, Lynnerup N, Boel LWT, Boldsen JL, Weise S, Bjarnø C, et al. Forensic anthropology and archaeology in Denmark. Scand J Forensic Sci. 2022;28:3–9. · DOI
  34. Baliso A, Heathfield LJ, Gibbon VE. Forensic human identification: retrospective investigation of anthropological assessments in the Western Cape, South Africa. Int J Legal Med. 2022 [cited 2022 Dec 27]. Available from: https://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00414-022-02870-6 · DOI
  35. Nieberg A. Retrospektive Analyse über forensisch anthropologische Knochenfunde in Hamburg und Umgebung (von 1980 bis 2015) [Dissertation]. Hamburg; 2018.
  36. Quatrehomme G. Postmortem skeletal lesions. Forensic Sci Int. 1997;81:155–65. · DOI
  37. Holz F, Birngruber CG, Verhoff MA. Prä- oder perimortale Knochentraumata vs. postmortale Defekte–Grundlagen der Differenzierung. Arch Für Kriminol. 2015;236:51–63.
  38. Coelho L, Cardoso HFV. Timing of blunt force injuries in long bones: the effects of the environment, PMI length and human surrogate model. Forensic Sci Int. 2013;233:230–7. · DOI
  39. Indra L, Lösch S. Forensic anthropology casework from Switzerland (Bern): taphonomic implications for the future. Forensic Sci Int Rep. 2021;4:100222. · DOI · Paper page
  40. Grisbaum GA, Ubelaker DH, Analysis of forensic anthropology cases submitted to the Smithsonian Institution by the Federal Bureau of Investigation from,. to 1994. Smithson Contrib Anthr. 1962;2001:1–15.
  41. Kendell A, Hutchinson A, Brill J, Bartelink E, Murad A, Willey P. Analysis of thirty-three years of forensic anthropology casework at California State University, Chico (1975–2008). Proc Am Acad Forensic Sci. 2009;15:347.
  42. Komar DA. Twenty-seven years of forensic anthropology casework in New Mexico. J Forensic Sci. 2003;48:521–4. · DOI · Paper page
  43. Ubelaker DH, DeGaglia CM. The impact of scavenging: perspective from casework in forensic anthropology. Forensic Sci Res. 2020;5:32–7. · DOI · Paper page
  44. Marks M, William M. Bass and the development of forensic anthropology in Tennessee. J Forensic Sci. 1995;40:741–50. · DOI
  45. Mundorff A. Urban anthropology: case studies from the New York City medical examiner’s office. Hard Evid Case Stud Forensic Anthropol. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall; 2003. p. 52–62.
  46. Brits DM, Steyn M, Hansmeyer C. Identifying the unknown and the undocumented: The Johannesburg (South Africa) experience. In: Parra RC, Zapico SC, Ubelaker DH, editors. Forensic Sci Humanit Action. 1st ed. Wiley; 2020 [cited 2022 Dec 28]. p. 681–92. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781119482062.ch44 · DOI
  47. Simpson E, Byard RW. A review of osteological remains submitted for forensic examination in south Australia over a 7-year period (2013–2019). J Forensic Leg Med. 2020;76: 102074. · DOI
  48. Donlon D, Croker S, Menzies J. Non-human bones in forensic casework: not such a trivial problem. Forensic Sci Med Pathol. 2020;16:442–9. · DOI
  49. Dogaroiu C, Dermengiu D, Viorel V. Forensic comparison between bear hind paw and human feet. Case report and illustrated anatomical and radiological guide. Romanian J Leg Med. 2012;20:131–4. · DOI
  50. Ohlwärther TEN, Holz F, Heidorn F, Verhoff MA, Birngruber CG. Rechtsmedizinische Begutachtung von Knochenfunden am Gießener Institut für Rechtsmedizin. Rechtsmedizin. 2022;32:11–9. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Ohlwärther, T. E. N., Holz, F., Edler, K., Kölzer, S. C., Reuss, E., Verhoff, M. A., & Birngruber, C. G.
Affiliations
  • Goethe University Frankfurt (DE)
  • Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen (DE)
Corresponding author
Birngruber, C. G.
ORCID
Venue
Forensic Science, Medicine and Pathology
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2023-04-17
Volume
20
Issue
2
Pages
480-489
ISSN
  • 1547-769X (ISSN-L)
  • 1556-2891
DOI
10.1007/s12024-023-00599-1
PMC
PMC11297073
OpenAlex
W4366084043
Cited by
7
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1
FWCI
5.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Forensic Science Medicine and Pathology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PUBLISSO (German National Library of Medicine) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Publication Server of Goethe University Frankfurt am Main (Goethe University Frankfurt) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität, Frankfurt am Main
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology (arts and humanities) › Forensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Insect Science › Forensic Entomology and Diptera Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Autopsy Techniques and Outcomes
Keywords
bone finds, human remains identification, forensic osteology, postmortem interval, faunal remains, DNA fingerprinting, STR profiles, Hesse
MeSH terms
Animals, Bone and Bones, Cattle, Deer, Germany, Humans, Postmortem Changes, Retrospective Studies, Swine, Forensic Anthropology

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review