In order to use dental records to identify a victim, you must have a presumed identity of the decedent so that AM records can be located. Identifications via other primary identifiers bear different challenges. As the use of biometrics expands worldwide, obtaining AM fingerprint records for an individual is becoming easier and faster than ever before. These, and other fingerprint databases, can also be searched against when the DVI victim is unknown. Collection of antemortem (AM) fingerprints for visa and passport databases is also growing rapidly worldwide. They are relied upon at borders, police stations, amusement parks, by employers wanting to verify the identity and the background of applicants, to unlock smart phones, and allow access to controlled facilities.
Additionally, fingerprints are the most commonly used biometric identifier and have been seamlessly integrated into daily life. Their use in the identification of a decedent is no different than identifying a live person. The use of PM friction ridge prints (fingerprints, palm prints or footprints) for victim identification is often the fastest primary identification method in DVI work. Wounded casualties that end up in the hospital with head trauma also typically cannot identify themselves and their identity must not be assumed. There have been many mass fatality cases all over the world in which one decedent was carrying the identification of another individual amongst their belongings, or two victims looked visually similar, and the wrong family was initially told their loved one was deceased. Either in an open-population event such as a bombing or hurricane, or in a closed-population event such as a plane crash with fragmentation, the singular use of contextual information will often lead to false associations of identity. These primary identifiers can be supported by secondary identifiers such as tattoos, scars, medical devices or other physical distinguishing features. Primary identifiers for DVI work include fingerprints, dental and DNA. In the case of a disaster event or when the decedents are completely unknown, it is imperative that primary identifiers be used for identification. While this may provide a tentative identification, it is easily subject to error and the forensic community has moved away from relying on such contextual clues. This could be a description of clothing the person was last seen in, or an identification card found in a purse near the body that looks similar to the victim. When attempting to identify a singular decedent who was found in a controlled environment such as their own home or workplace, it is not uncommon to assume identity using only contextual information. Victim identification is also a legal matter, and the final issuance of verified identification can only be completed by the presiding legal authority. The current guide was last revised in 2014 and continues to outline the currently suggested practices in victim identification. While most countries equipped to handle a mass fatality have their own standards and protocols for performing DVI work, in 1984 International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL) published a DVI guide to ensure that proper identification techniques are used and to promote universal practices. What is consistent between entities performing DVI work is the desire to properly identify victims to the greatest extent possible, using any viable means. The term “disaster” does not imply a specific number of victims but rather implores the use of scientific and contextual clues to effect victim identifications. Depending on the locale of the DVI event and the countries who are working on the incident, the number of victims involved could vary from one to many.
Background on fingerprints in disaster victim identificationĭisaster victim identification (DVI) is a term that is used to collectively describe the process in which victims of a mass fatality are identified postmortem (PM).