Displaying all 2 publications

Abstract:
Sort:
  1. Jayaprakash PT
    Forensic Sci Int, 2013 Sep 10;231(1-3):403.e1-16.
    PMID: 23849815 DOI: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2013.05.028
    Uniqueness being unprovable, it has recently been argued that individualization in forensic science is irrelevant and, probability, as applied for DNA profiles, should be applied for all identifications. Critiques against uniqueness have omitted physical matching, a realistic and tangible individualization that supports uniqueness. Describing case examples illustrating pattern matches including physical matching, it is indicated that individualizations are practically relevant for forensic science as they establish facts on a definitive basis providing firm leads benefitting criminal investigation. As a tenet of forensic identification, uniqueness forms a fundamental paradigm relevant for individualization. Evidence on the indeterministic and stochastic causal pathways of characteristics in patterns available in the related fields of science sufficiently supports the proposition of uniqueness. Characteristics involved in physical matching and matching achieved in patterned evidence existing in the state of nature are not events amenable for counting; instead these are ensemble of visible units occupying the entire pattern area stretching the probability of re-occurrence of a verisimilitude pattern into infinity offering epistemic support to uniqueness. Observational methods are as respectable as instrumental or statistical methods since they are capable of generating results that are tangible and obviously valid as in physical matching. Applying the probabilistic interpretation used for DNA profiles to the other patterns would be unbefitting since these two are disparate, the causal pathways of the events, the loci, in the manipulated DNA profiles being determinable. While uniqueness enables individualizations, it does not vouch for eliminating errors. Instead of dismissing uniqueness and individualization, accepting errors as human or system failures and seeking remedial measures would benefit forensic science practice and criminal investigation.
    Matched MeSH terms: Cranial Sutures/radiography
  2. Jayaprakash PT, Srinivasan GJ
    Forensic Sci Int, 2013 Jun 10;229(1-3):166.e1-13.
    PMID: 23582744 DOI: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2013.03.038
    Forensic identification of juvenile skulls is a problem area. Although the skull suture patterns have been suggested for use in individualizing human remains by comparing antemortem and postmortem radiographs, the age at which such patterns stabilize and can be useful for identification had been indicated as 7 years. Subsequent researchers have also concurred that antemortem and postmortem radiographs taken after the 7th year would be sufficient to meet the Daubert standard criteria for identifying skulls using radiographs. The suggestions regarding the lower age limit for stabilization of suture patterns have not been verified so far. In this research, the patterns of the sutures in the ectocranial and endocranial surfaces of the lambdoid region in 22 juvenile skulls (age range 1-10 years) and 100 adult skulls (age range 17-70 years) were studied for the relative incidence of different types of suture patterns. The radiographic recordings of the suture patterns in the juvenile skulls were also compared with the patterns seen in the ectocranial and endocranial surfaces. The findings of this study support the proposition that the suture patterns are plastic during the juvenile stage and that they undergo significant remodeling during growth into adulthood. Indicating the possibility of growth related alterations in the sutural morphology, the onset of adulthood is suggested as the age for stabilization of suture patterns in the context of prescribing standards for such criteria as those relating to Daubert.
    Matched MeSH terms: Cranial Sutures/radiography*
Related Terms
Filters
Contact Us

Please provide feedback to Administrator ([email protected])

External Links