Anyone on here a coroner..?

[Grumpystiltskin]

I have some questions relating to evidence chains (purely academic, nothing juicy I'm afraid!) and identification of remains.

Many thanks

It might be helpful to widen the net a little its not just coroners that know this kind of stuff. There are police officers, doctors, forensic scientists, crime scene investigators etc

Thank you for your reply! The questions I have specifically relate to coroners law but I would love to know if there are any police officers on here??

I'm trying to ascertain what primary identification points would satisfy a coroner of the identity of a body and also, whether digital imaging is harder to use as evidence because of the problems associated with assuring it's integrity.

Hi

The identification points are purely at the Coroner's discretion. In a straightforward case a visual id from someone close to the deceased will suffice.
Where visual identification is not possible fingerprints are cheap, quick and straightforward if the person is recorded, or can be matched to prints on their known possessions if not recorded.
DNA can be used, either by comparing with a DNA record, with their DNA on a personal possession such as a toothbrush or by matching to a close relative. A relative from the maternal line is usually selected, because you usually know who the mother is, sometimes the person who thinks he is the father might not be!
Dental records can be used if available.
But as I said, it's purely down to the individual Coroner - I once identified someone by fingerprints and DNA (they had a criminal record, so we already had records for comparison), and the Coroner sent me back to take photographs of their tattoos to show to relatives, so that he could be 'certain' of the identification!
With regard to digital imagery, when this first became available it was hugely problematic, but there's been a national protocol in place for about 10 years now which dictates how digital images must be taken and stored to allow for their use as evidence.

Sorry this is a bit of an essay - hope it helps.

It is also possible to "watermark" a digital image to protect its integrity. Having said that tracability and accountability to a standard protocol would do under most circumstances.

There are many, many identification techniques and it would be down to the individual coroner what to make of the evidence in front of them.

igivein Are fingerprints alone sufficient? What if DNA can't be extracted or there is no reference sample? Can you give me a reference for the national protocols? Thank you so much for your time.

I understand it's down to the coroner's discretion but I am trying to get an understanding of what they take into account, particularly when identifyin only partial remains.

Whole finger prints are more identifying than DNA. Twins have the same DNA they do not have the same prints.

Fingerprints are sufficient, as no two people have ever been found to have the same fingerprints, and no-one has the same print on more than one digit.
You can get fingerprints from really quite decomposed bodies (and what a fun job that is!).
It's very rare you can't get DNA from bone marrow or tooth pulp if nowhere else. If you really can't get a viable sample or there is no reference sample or relative for comparison you're a bit stuck and you'd have to move on to a different identification method.
I don't know if the digital imaging protocol is a restricted document, I don't think it is, but it's at work and I'm at home at the moment so can't check. You might be able to track it down via Google, sorry I can't be of more help with that, but I'm not back at work until a week on Monday.

igivein I have pmed you.

As an aside, must you always remove hands to fingerprint? I'm thinking of the marchionesss disaster here.

Many thanks

Hi

Sorry I disappeared, been to DS's school garden party.

I've answered your pm. There was a huge amount of criticism of what happened after the marchioness. It's not necessary to remove hands, and from a practical point of view once they're removed from the body there's the possibility of a mix-up leading to misidentifications.
Occasionally where decomposition is fairly advanced it may be necessary to de-glove the hand to obtain prints from the back of the dermis.

Oooh, great hope you had fun. We're having the street party in our garden on sunday so fingers crossed for the weather!

I'm assuming that decomposition and burns would prevent use of fingerprints. Does burning affect DNA? I'm thinking it would denature proteins but I can't think how it would affect DNA.

May I ask what this is for as if it is academic (depending on the level) I may be able to point you in the direction of some people or some literature.

Just to add, doesn't have to be someone closely related to id to do visual id, can often be a doctor who has treated in hospital, for someone who has died in hospital.

Hi Grumpy

I have parted with piles of cash, won enough on the tombola to supply 'gift' requests for the next three fundraising events and DS acquired a bag full of dodgy looking plastic tat from the second hand toy stall, so I feel I've done my duty! - We're supposed to be having a Jubilee picnic in a forrest near us, but looking at the weather I think we may have to transfer operations to the front room.

So ...

Decomposition doesn't necessarily rule out fingerprints, if there's still some dermis left you might stand a chance. Similarly with burning, it depends how burnt. Sometimes you can flake away the upper burnt layer to reveal ridge detail beneath. Also, because burnt bodies tend to display a characteristic 'pugilistic attitude' (because all the muscles contract) the inner surfaces of the hands can sometimes be protected - although this is one instance where you may have to remove a fingertip to get at the print, if so you'd try other less destructive methods first.

Heat does tend to denature DNA, so burnt bodies can be problematic. The best option would probably be bone marrow.

Burnt bodies are a good time for forensic odontologists to stand front and centre!

Any identification technique is only as good as its point if reference. DNA can not identify someone without a reference profile. Theoretically dental records are more diverse than DNA or fingerprints.

I don't understand what that means, can you explain what makes them more diverse? Thank you!!

A great generalization here but in if we just use database records as an example for your DNA or fingerprints to be on the database you need to have been arrested at some point. The same is not so for dental records. However dental records are not a blind identifier, you would have to have some idea of the persons identity (and dentist) to get the records in the first place.

As I explained earlier, it's much easier to use DNA or fingerprints if the person is on record, but still possible if they're not.
Fingerprints can be obtained by examining the person's possessions / residence, and DNA by matching to a close relative or by profiling something like the deceased's toothbrush.
Neither of these options would be available if you didn't have a clue who the deceased was, but then you would need to investigate to try and track them down.
As an aside it's now common practice to put a DNA profile of missing persons on the NDNA database, and there are several instances of unknown bodies being identified by this method.