So this probably sounds pretty morbid, but it’s just for a story I’m writing - in fact, the story kind of hinges on it, so I need to get the facts. If only the lower torso (waist down) of a murder victim was found, would there be a way to positively identify the victim? IOW, are fingerprints the only reliable method of determining identity, or are there other tools available to (forensic) scientists with a high degree of accuracy?
DNA would be as good or better than fingerprints in the abstract, but there is less chance that someone’s DNA would be in the system. However, if there is reason to think that the torso belongs to someone in particular then DNA could be taken from items in the house (hair, toothbrush, etc.) to try for a match.
It’s possible that a footprint taken at a hospital at birth would still be avaiable for verification. They used to routinely footprint babies for identification. I assume this is because the fingers and prints were so small.
I should preface this by saying that pretty much all of my knowledge in this area comes from TV.
Anyways, If they have a lower torso, they know the age, sex, and race of the victim. You then compare this to the list of known missing people, and start looking for things that will either help match up the victim to a missing person or eliminate a missing person from the list. For example, if the victim at some point in their life broke their left leg, you can eliminate any of your missing people that didn’t break their left leg. If Bob on the missing list has a pin in his ankle from an injury, and the victim doesn’t, then Bob’s off the list. On the other hand, if the victim does have a pin in his ankle, that’s a fairly rare thing, and you need to take a really close look at Bob. Once you narrow your list down to a very small number, you can do DNA testing.
Once they identify the victim, the spouse is always the number one suspect, no matter how much they may say otherwise in public. Once they have a suspect, they are going to interrogate them for hours and hours and hours and keep asking for details. If someone is lying, they aren’t going to be able to keep all of the miniscule details straight and they will almost always trip themselves up over some small detail. If the suspect refuses to say anything, they know they have their man, and all they need to do is find forensic evidence to prove it.
Yeah, in my story it would be a husband killing his wife, so there’d be no one to report her missing, and no reason to suspect it belonged to someone in particular, so that would work. Thanks. I wasn’t real sure on the methods used when using DNA.
Hm. Interesting. But I think, this being a work of fiction, I can conveniently ignore that possibility without worrying too much about anybody calling me on it. Thanks!
Thanks for the answer. In my story, the husband is the killer, so the victim (wife) hasn’t been reported missing, so it sounds like I might be able to make it work.
Well, you could always go with the big unexpected twist; finding the victim’s wallet in her sock.
Meh, this is overdone in fiction. It’s gotten to the point where it’s almost shocking and borlderline implausible for an innocent person to fully understand his civil rights and realize that unless he can instantly and indisputably prove his innocence (and maybe not even then), talking to the police is a really bad idea.
I’d like to see the guy who refuses to talk to the cops turn out to not be the killer, or the perpetrator of some other crime he’s trying to conceal, or the sole guardian of some disabled relative/puppy (the last time he spoke to authority, social services/the SPCA fucked up the situation immensely, hence his silence) or anything other than someone who understands and exercises the right to remain silent. Unfortunately, that might make for unsatisfying fiction.
Toeprints
DNA Registry
Tattoos
Scars
Broken bones(via xrays)
Piercings
Real Personal Indentification
Or perhaps they could just be somebody who watches Law & Order and realizes that nobody with money ever talks to the police without a lawyer present, period.
From what I understand, BTW, baby footprints are more or less worthless for identification of adults.
Fibers and hairs found on the victim can also give important clues. For example, if a hair is found on her sock that belongs to a certain breed of dog, that can help narrow down the list.
Stomach contents might come into play. If the victim has semi-digested escargot in her tummy, and there’s only one nearby resturant that serves it, and you can narrow down the time of death, resturant employees could be interviewed.
I would think that one of her friends or relatives would report her missing if the husband didn’t.
You may already have noted this for the plot of your story, but the simple fact that the husband failed to report her absence will go heavily against him once they ID her, unless he has some reason to think she’s somewhere else (on an extended business trip, for instance). It sounds as if he’s relying entirely on the body never being found, or if found, never to be identified, which seems like a double-or-nothing gamble.
How decayed are you wanting the remains to be? If the skinand soft tissues are absent you’ll lose a lot of identifying evidence.
You’ll be able to get age, height, shoe size and gender from the bones (pelvis for age and gender, femur for height, feet for shoe size).
Race from the skin.
Build from the shape and size of the bones and muscle attachments if the remains are decayed, simply from looking if not decayed.
You’d be able to tell if a female had ever been heavily pregnant or given birth from the bones (if there was skin and soft tissue you would also look for episiotomy or c-section scars and stretch marks).
From the state of nutrition, the muscle bulk and the state of the toenails you have some idea whether you’re looking for someone who took care of themself (implies relatives, friends, colleagues, work mates) or not (itinerant, mental illness, extreme poverty).
You know, skin is not always a reliable indication of race. For starters, there are a lot of mixed race individuals. Sun exposure can also alter skin color considerably. Finally, decay can bleach skin, and mildew/mold discolor it enough to make determinations of race based on skin samples very questionable.
Strangely enough, the shape of the femur can help determine ethnicity in broad terms. Much as some folks like to dismiss the idea of “race”, it is a fact that on average people with ancestory from one continent have thighbone features that differ subtly from those of other continents. It’s not exact, but along with other features can help determine if someone is of predominently African, Asian, or European ancestry. If you’re talking about a place where folks have a strongly mixed ancestry, though, this won’t help much.
Broomstick-you know, you’re right. I’d forgotten the “don’t judge race from skin colour” lecturing during my forensics course. Shows what posting while half-asleep will do.
Pelvis shape could help with race too…some shapes (anthropoid, platypelloid) are more common in women of African descent than Caucasian women (50-80% of whom have gynaecoid pelvises).