Identifying a body – A bit gruesome…

[SoulJackerUK]

Roll-up forensic experts!

If a body had its head (ugh!), feet and hands removed, would it be hard to identify?

Would be almost impossible?

...Hope you weren't eating when you read the above...

[Legend of the Mongoose]

There may still be other clues. Not many. DNA, of course... but you'd have to have a matching sample. Blood type could help.

Tattoos, or other identifying birthmarks or scars.

If the body still had it's wallet on it, that would be very helpful.

How about this... the body gets identified, because the family is prone to a rare genetic disease, and this is revealed in an examination of the DNA for clues as to identity.

[robertpr007]

Interesting subject as murder and mayhem often enter my stories. I have done research on this, and most certainly have no illusions about being an authority. But right or wrong, here is what I have concluded.

Leaving the head provides what clues to the ID?
None, that I can understand. Have you ever seen a picture of a dead person in the paper? "DO YOU KNOW THIS MAN?"

I sure have not, and what other clues does the head provide?

Feet? Why? Toe prints from birth? These would only apply if they had prints to compare, and considering the hundreds of millions of people born in the US, that is useless. There is no central data base.

The body would tell approximate age, gender, hair color, general health, some habits [drinking, smoking, drugs, prescription drugs, etc] so leaving the head does not really add to the identity of the victim.

IMHO, only the fingertips would really ID somebody, as most of us have been printed at some time, and there is a partial US database on this. [although I'm told it's not complete, it's the closest we have to national ID]

DNA? Only if compared to another set of charts.

Ergo: remove the fingertips alone, and you have made it VERY difficult to ID. Most without prints are identified by relatives knowing that so and so went missing on this day, and the authorities found this body in this location. Then they get together and compare.

I am curious to other replies on this thread.

[SoulJackerUK]

Good stuff guys. Thanks.

Any other corpse fetishists* got any input?

*Only joking now.

:b

[Legend of the Mongoose]

Actually, leaving the head leaves the dental records, which is a common and very accurate way of identifying a body. Probably one of the widest used, next to fingerprints.

Plus, you can do that cool thing that Kevin Kline did in Wild Wild West and project the image from the back of the skull onto a screen to see what the person last saw. ;)

[robertpr007]

Actually, using dental records to identify a completely unknown body is almost non-existant. Think about it. Let's say you get a copy of your dental own x-rays and you want to test this theory. Where do you send them? Police? Why? FBI? They don't have access to everyone's dental records. In fact, outside your own private dentist's office, your dental records do not even exist. Check with your dentist if you don't believe me.

Now, dental records are used ALL the time to CONFIRM this body belongs to that set of X-rays. Yes, but only if you have
A: a body with teeth
B: the dental records of somebody you 'think' is the body.

Different situation entirely. [I once wanted to use this same ploy in a SP, but conversations with several dentists squashed that idea]

They match 'possible' missing persons with bodies and then go for dental records, but working only from a very short list.

[Bonesetter]

If these sorts of topics pop up in your scripts very often you may want to pick up a copy of <a href=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0385479689/104-1603582-5298316>D ead Men Do Tell Tales</a> by Dr. William Maples. He's a forensic anthropologist and tells some amazing stories in the book.

[7oak]

A very dedicated professional could, with luck, identify almost (anybody) any body.

I remember a recent forensic science show in which the forensic scientist was able to identify a body from body shavings (yes, a la Fargo--the frozen body had been put through a wood-chipper).

It really behooves one to kill a person who's unlikely to have suspicion immediately attached to the disappearance.

In other words, kill some poor hooker with no pimp, family or friends; don't kill a well-connected housewife with dinner-party plans for the evening.

It's surprising how few people consider this.

[moorea01]

The head with attendant teeth is really only useful if you have an inkling who the person might be so know what dentist to get records from to compare. This method is used a lot with plane crashes, etc when fingerprints might be charred and they know what people are dead/missing in the crash. In the future, irises will be more important as identifying factors - but not yet.

What the above poster said about tattoos, etc is true. This can lend clues. Also, surgical scars. If the person had any kind of artificial device inserted in the body - artificial hip, pacemaker, etc. - the device may have a serial number on it which can be matched with the recipient of the device. I believe there is a true case of an artificial hip number being used to identify a body.

Sometimes stomach contents can be used to identify what/where the person last ate which gives investigators a clue to start a search.

If the body parts give evidence of a fairly rare disease, investigators could narrow down the search a lot. DNA is really not going to be helpful unless they have an idea who it is - thus causing them to get a sample of DNA (hair from a hairbrush, etc) for a specific person.

Fingerprints are only helpful if the person's prints are on file. This (in the US) would include arrested and/or convicted persons, government employees, lawyers, doctors - I think, residents of states where driver's licenses now require fingerprints (usually just an index print), etc. There are plenty of citizens who don't have prints on record.

[Legend of the Mongoose]

Moore...

don't forget insurance salesmen, teachers, child-care workers, law enforcement (including security officers), anyone who's ever attempted to adopt a child or become a foster parent, military (current/former), stock brokers. Anyone with a previous criminal record.

There may be more. these are the ones I can think of in california.

[SoulJackerUK]

Right, I'm off to find a fresh victim...Yes, another joke. Sometimes I can't contain my "killer" humour...Sorry...

Seriously, you guys are great. Some excellent tech knowledge on display here.

Thanks, big time.


:)

[pindercarl]

I have no idea what they do with it, or what privacy rights allow government bureaus to share data, but the DMV has my thumbprint on record. They scanned when I got my California DL in 1996.

[Legend of the Mongoose]

I know.

I used yours for my license.

That way, when the cop tries to ID me, I can say "See, you've got the wrong guy."