The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Applying Knowledge of Species‐Typical Scavenging Behavior to the Search and Recovery of Mammalian Skeletal Remains
Abstract
Forensic investigations involving animal scavenging of human remains require a physical search of the scene and surrounding areas. However, there is currently no standard procedure in the U.K. for physical searches of scavenged human remains. The Winthrop and grid search methods used by police specialist searchers for scavenged remains were examined through the use of mock red fox ( Vulpes vulpes ) scatter scenes. Forty‐two police specialist searchers from two different regions within the U.K. were divided between those briefed and not briefed with fox‐typical scavenging information. Briefing searchers with scavenging information significantly affected the recovery of scattered bones (χ 2 = 11.45, df = 1, p = 0.001). Searchers briefed with scavenging information were 2.05 times more likely to recover bones. Adaptions to search methods used by searchers were evident on a regional level, such that searchers more accustom to a peri‐urban to rural region recovered a higher percentage of scattered bones (58.33%, n = 84).
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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?
Knowledge on the specific faunal agent and its scavenging behaviour can increase recovery success in a forensic case.
“knowledge on the specific faunal agent and its scav enging behaviour can increase the recovery success in a forensic case [112,114,115].”
From Forensic experiments on animal scavenging: A systematic literature review on what we have and what we need (2023) · cites this paper as [114]
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: 34
- 10.1111/1556-4029.12554 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1520/JFS12679J · DOI
- 10.1520/JFS13377J · DOI
- Haglund WD, 1997, Forensic taphonomy: the postmortem fate of human remains, 383
- 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2006.00304.x · DOI
- 10.1111/1556-4029.12468 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2011.02017.x · DOI
- 10.1016/j.forsciint.2011.11.030 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1080/00085030.2008.10757178 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2009.01020.x · DOI
- National Centre for Policing Excellence, 2005, Guidance on Major Incident Room Standard Administrative Procedures (MIRSAP)
- National Centre for Policing Excellence, 2006, Murder investigation manual
- 10.1093/police/pau007 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1006/jasc.1995.0016 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jas.2006.12.006 · DOI
- 10.2307/2802756 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2006.00134.x · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.forsciint.2006.07.023 · DOI
- 10.1520/JFS12718J · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1097/00000433-200209000-00006 · DOI
- Sauer N, 1998, Forensic osteology: advances in the identification of human remains, 321
- 10.1520/JFS13311J · DOI
- 10.1016/j.scijus.2011.03.004 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jflm.2010.04.008 · DOI
- Hunter J, 2005, Forensic archaeology: advances in theory and practice
- Tilley N, 1996, Crime detection and prevention series, Paper 73, 3
- Brown A, 2002, The combined use of pollen and soil analyses in a search and subsequent murder investigation, J Forensic Sci, 47, 614, 10.1520/JFS15302J · DOI
- 10.1080/03122417.2004.11681775 · DOI
- 10.1520/JFS14474J · DOI
- 10.1520/JFS2003048 · DOI
- 10.1520/JFS13594J · DOI
- 10.1385/FSMP:2:2:95 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.forsciint.2007.02.031 · DOI
- 10.1520/JFS2002296 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Indra, L., Lösch, S., Errickson, D., & Finaughty, D. (2023) · Forensic Science International · doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2023.111862 · Cited by 18
Metadata
- Authors
- Young, A., Stillman, R., Smith, M. J., & Korstjens, A. H.
- Affiliations
- Bournemouth University (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Young, Alexandria
- Venue
- Journal of Forensic Sciences
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2015-11-09
- Volume
- 61
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 458-466
- ISSN
- 0022-1198 (ISSN-L)
- 1556-4029
- OpenAlex
- W2119015155
- Cited by
- 22
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1
- FWCI
- 0.95
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Forensic Sciences (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Bournemouth University Research Online (Bournemouth University) (acceptedVersion)
- 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
- red fox, grid search
- MeSH terms
- Body Remains, Animals, Bone and Bones, Feeding Behavior, Foxes, United Kingdom, Humans, Pilot Projects, Postmortem Changes, Species Specificity, Police, 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
