Cited by 14Forensic Entomology and Diptera StudiesForensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology StudiesAutopsy Techniques and Outcomes

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Scavenging in Northwestern Europe: A Survey of UK Police Specialist Search Officers

Open access
Young, A., Stillman, R., Smith, M. J., Korstjens, A. H.·2014·Policing

Abstract

Physical search methods used by police specialist searchers \nare based on counter-terrorism methods and not on the search and recovery of outdoor surface deposited human remains, nevertheless these methods are applied to scenes \ninvolving human remains. Additionally, there is limited published forensic literature within Northwestern Europe on the potential taphonomic agents within this region that are capable of modifying human remains through scavenging, scattering and removal. The counter-terrorism basis in physical search methods and the gap in published forensic literature regarding scavenging in this region can potentially impede searchers’ abilities to adapt physical \nsearch methods to their full efficiency in the search and recovery of scavenged human remains. This paper analysed through a questionnaire survey of 111 police specialist searchers, within the U.K., the impact of animal scavenging on the search and recovery of human remains.According to \nquestionnaire respondents’ experiences and knowledge, the occurrence of scavenging at scenes in which respondents took part in a physical search for human remains was common \n(63.46%,n= 66) and happened most frequently with surface deposits (68.25%,n= 43). Scavenging resulted in the recovery of incomplete sets of remains (59.79%, n= 58) and \ninfluenced search perimeters (58.33%, n= 35). Scavenging also affected recovery rates at scene searches (80.43%,n= 74) that included the use of cadaver dogs with police handlers. The impact scavengers within this region have on different crime scene scenarios and search methods is not reflected in current published literature or search standards.

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 · 10.1093/police/pau007

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?

  • Scavenging rates of 4.8-60% have been reported in forensic anthropological casework surveys from South Africa, the USA, the UK, and Switzerland.

    “scavenging rates of 4.8 -60% were stated in forensic anthropological casework surveys from South Africa, the USA, the UK, and Switzerland [2 -6].”

    From Forensic experiments on animal scavenging: A systematic literature review on what we have and what we need (2023) · cites this paper as [6]

    The Materials and Methods describe a UK survey of police search officers about their experience of forensic cases, so this source supports the UK survey component. The Abstract reports scavenging at 63.46% of relevant scenes—outside the claimed 4.8–60% range—and the survey was not of forensic anthropological casework. This source does not establish the rates for South Africa, the USA, or Switzerland. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    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: 35

  1. 2004, Journal of Forensic Sciences, 49, 1
  2. 2003, RUSSIAN JOURNAL OF THERIOLOGY, 1, 133, 10.15298/rusjtheriol.01.2.07 · DOI
  3. Benecke, 1998, Journal of Forensic Sciences, 43, 797, 10.1520/JFS14309J · DOI
  4. 2004, AUSTRALIAN ARCHAEOLOGY, 58, 11, 10.1080/03122417.2004.11681775 · DOI
  5. Brown, 2002, Journal of Forensic Sciences, 47, 614, 10.1520/JFS15302J · DOI
  6. 2002, THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF FORENSIC MEDICINE AND PATHOLOGY, 23, 238, 10.1097/00000433-200209000-00006 · DOI
  7. 2001, Forensic Science International, 2, 18
  8. 2005, Journal of Zoology, 266, 133, 10.1017/S0952836905006643 · DOI
  9. Christiansen, 2007, Ecology, 88, 347, 10.1890/0012-9658(2007)88[347:BFAEAT]2.0.CO;2 · DOI
  10. 1993, Oecologia, 95, 558, 10.1007/BF00317441 · DOI
  11. 1990, Journal of Mammalogy, 71, 188, 10.2307/1382166 · DOI
  12. Haglund, 1992, Journal of Forensic Sciences, 37, 1459, 10.1520/JFS13338J · DOI
  13. 2008, THE JOURNAL OF HOMICIDE AND MAJOR INCIDENT INVESTIGATION, 14, 71
  14. Klippel, 2007, Journal of Forensic Sciences, 52, 765, 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2007.00467.x · DOI · Paper page
  15. Komar, 1998, Journal of Forensic Sciences, 43, 57, 10.1520/JFS16090J · DOI
  16. Komar, 1999, Journal of Forensic Sciences, 44, 405, 10.1520/JFS14474J · DOI
  17. 1981, Journal of Animal Ecology, 50, 773, 10.2307/4136 · DOI
  18. Kulshrestha, 2001, Forensic Science International, 120, 15, 10.1016/S0379-0738(01)00410-8 · DOI
  19. Lee, 2004, Journal of Morphology, 260, 57, 10.1002/jmor.10212 · DOI
  20. 1996, Journal of Biogeography, 23, 649, 10.1111/j.1365-2699.1996.tb00025.x · DOI
  21. 2004, Oikos, 106, 295, 10.1111/j.0030-1299.2004.12879.x · DOI
  22. Mann, 1990, Journal of Forensic Sciences, 35, 103, 10.1520/JFS12806J · DOI · Paper page
  23. Morton, 2006, Journal of Forensic Sciences, 51, 475, 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2006.00134.x · DOI · Paper page
  24. 2007, FORENSIC SCIENCE MEDICINE AND PATHOLOGY, 3, 194, 10.1007/s12024-007-0016-3 · DOI
  25. 2008, Forensic Science International, 175, 35
  26. Pohjoismaki, 2010, Forensic Science International, 199, 38, 10.1016/j.forsciint.2010.02.033 · DOI
  27. 2001, 24, 267, 10.1111/j.1600-0587.2001.tb00199.x · DOI
  28. 2001, Canadian Journal of Zoology = Journal Canadien de Zoologie, 79, 165, 10.1139/z00-173 · DOI
  29. 2002, Journal of Animal Ecology, 71, 497, 10.1046/j.1365-2656.2002.00617.x · DOI
  30. 2004, Journal of Forensic Sciences, 49, 1
  31. Ropohl, 1995, Forensic Science International, 72, 81, 10.1016/0379-0738(94)01675-U · DOI
  32. Rothschild, 1997, Forensic Science International, 89, 57, 10.1016/S0379-0738(97)00112-6 · DOI
  33. 1987, Journal of Mammalogy, 68, 92, 10.2307/1381050 · DOI
  34. 2000, Journal of Zoology, 250, 299, 10.1111/j.1469-7998.2000.tb00773.x · DOI
  35. Wroe, 2005, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 272, 619, 10.1098/rspb.2004.2986 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Young, A., Stillman, R., Smith, M. J., & Korstjens, A. H.
Affiliations
Bournemouth University (GB)
Venue
Policing
Published
2014-03-17
Volume
8
Issue
2
Pages
156-164
ISSN
  • 1752-4512 (ISSN-L)
  • 1752-4520
OpenAlex
W1989698004
Cited by
14
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2015: 2
FWCI
0.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Locations
  • Policing A Journal of Policy and Practice (publishedVersion)
  • Bournemouth University Research Online (Bournemouth University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Insect Science › Forensic Entomology and Diptera Studies
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology (arts and humanities) › Forensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Autopsy Techniques and Outcomes
Keywords
human remains recovery, forensic taphonomy, cadaver dogs, surficial deposits, northwestern Europe

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