Sharp bone trauma diagnosis: a validation study using epifluorescence microscopy
Identifying tool mark and involved weapon in sharp force trauma is essential to understanding the circumstances of death. But accuracy and reliability of such expert testimony remains unknown, and validation studies are rare in forensic literature. That is why, we conducted an experiment in order to determine error rates and predictive values on identifying the right implement through different types of knife-inflicted trauma. Human bone cut marks were analysed through epifluorescence microscopy. The samples were examined through a randomised, blinded, controlled study by three researchers with varying degrees of experience with direct and indirect observation of cut marks (photography). Our results showed that identifying the weapon involved is possible thanks to numerous criteria analysis. Correct classification rates were high and misclassifications rare. Asymmetric blades obtained better results than symmetric blades. Predictive values were also calculated, and the negative one reached very high levels, near 100% with regard to all the implements. Positive predictive values were more variable. But even if individual diagnoses remain in doubt, triage can be done and tools not implicated in injury can be eliminated with certainty. Moreover, our work clearly highlighted the importance of experience in such activities. A high level of experience is fundamental to obtain the best values, especially in such a context where evidence reliability is extremely important for forensic admissibility testimony in the court.
KeywordsSharp bone trauma Validation study Knife Error rate Predictive value Epifluorescence microscopy
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 7.Symes SA, Berryman HE, Smith OC (1998) Saw marks in bone: introduction and examination of residual kerf contour. In: Reichs KJ (ed) Forensic osteology: advances in the identification of human remains, 2nd edn. Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, IL, pp 389–409Google Scholar
- 8.Symes SA, Chapman EN, Rainwater CW, Cabo LL, Myster SMT (2010) Knife and saw toolmark analysis in bone : a manual designed for the examination of criminal mutilation and dismemberment. Forensic anthropology at Mercyhurst College, PennsylvaniaGoogle Scholar
- 12.Rieppo J, Halmesmaki EP, Siitonen U, Laasanen MS, Toyras J, Kiviranta I, Hyttinen MM, Jurvelin JS, Helminen HJ (2003) Histological differences of human, bovine and porcine cartilage, in: 49th annual meeting of the Orthopaedic Research Society, New Orleans, LAGoogle Scholar
- 14.Capuani C, Guilbeau-Frugier C, Delisle MB, Rougé D, Telmon N (2014) Epifluorescence analysis of hacksaw marks on bone: highlighting unique individual characteristics. Forensic Sci Med 241:95–202Google Scholar