Cited by 10Forensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology StudiesForensic Entomology and Diptera StudiesArchaeological Research and Protection

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Success Rates of Recovering Dispersed Bones among Leaf Litter

Abstract

Many outdoor forensic scenes are located in forested areas, and these often require searching through leaf litter to find locally dispersed skeletal remains. Little is known about success rates when processing a scene in this manner, in comparison with previous research on success rates of bone recovery from screening excavated sediments through different size meshes. In order to test recovery rates when searching through leaf litter, ten simulated outdoor scenes sown with disperesed, skeltonized, older juvenile pig (Sus scrofa) bones of different types were processed in succession. All bones had variable brown staining from previous decomposition and burial to include the effects of natural camouflaging typical to forensic scenes in this envrionment. Their sizes were comparable to intact human juvenile reamins or partial adult remains, with some overlap with adult human remains. Procession was executed through a hand-and-knee crawl while picking through all leaf litter by hand and dumping it off-site, leaving behind topsoil with all discovered bones makred by pin flags. Recovery rates ranged from 68.1% to 81.9% per trail, with an overall recovery rate of 76.7% (n=853 elements). Significiant differences in recovery rate based upon bone size category were noted, and a significant downward trend for recovery rates was noted over time, indicating that cumulative searcher fatigue may have played a role. Forensic archaeologists are cautioned that full recovery cannot be assumed in these situations. Careful searching by hand is recommended to mitigate the loss of evidence and should be integrated into all forensic search protocols.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.5744/fa.2018.0021

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Pokines, J. T., Mammano, K., Studebaker-Reed, M., Mowery, J., Patterson, M., Schneider, C., Trapp, B., & Mincher, C.
Affiliations
Boston University (US)
Venue
Forensic Anthropology
Published
2018-09-27
Volume
1
Issue
4
ISSN
  • 2573-5020 (ISSN-L)
  • 2573-5039
OpenAlex
W2884513656
Cited by
10
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2
FWCI
2.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Forensic Anthropology (publishedVersion)
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
  • Social Sciences › Archeology › Archaeological Research and Protection
Keywords
bone recovery, leaf litter

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