What are Forensic Sciences? - Concepts, Scope and Future Perspectives

WHAT ARE

FORENSIC SCIENCES? CONCEPTS, SCOPE AND FUTURE PERSPECTIVES

Editors:

Ricardo Jorge Dinis-Oliveira Teresa Magalh達es

Social, Forensic, and Educational Sciences Publisher www.pactor.pt

© 2016, PACTOR – Social, Forensic, and Educational Sciences Publisher (www.pactor.pt) Pactor is an imprint of FCA – Editora de Informática, Lda. ISBN 978-989-693-058-5 1st edition: february 2016 Cover Design: José Manuel Reis We are not responsible for any error in the hyperlinks of this book, which were checked at publication date.

All rights reserved No part of this book may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, recording, or otherwise, without written permission from the publisher.

TABLE OF CONTENTS Tribute to Duarte Nuno Vieira About the Authors Editors/Authors Authors Preface Chapter 1: Introduction to Forensic Sciences References Chapter 2: Forensic Sciences Today and Its Path to the Future References Chapter 3: Forensic Anthropology Concept Scope Future perspectives References Chapter 4: Forensic Ballistics Concept Scope Future perspectives References Chapter 5: Forensic Biomechanics Concept Scope Future perspectives References Chapter 6: Forensic Botany Concept Scope Future perspectives References Chapter 6.1: Forensic Palynology Concept Scope Future perspectives References Chapter 7: Document Examination Concept Scope Future perspectives References Chapter 8: Forensic Nursing

Concept Scope Future perspectives References Chapter 9: Forensic Entomology Concept Scope Future perspectives References Chapter 10: Forensic Photography Concept Scope Future perspectives References Chapter 11: Forensic Genetics Concept Scope Future perspectives References Chapter 12: DNA Database Concept Scope Future perspectives References Chapter 13: Forensic Geology Concept Scope Future perspectives References Chapter 14: Computer Forensics Concept Scope Future perspectives References Chapter 15: Bloodstain Pattern Analysis Concept Scope Future perspectives References Chapter 16: Forensic Investigation on Explosive Atmospheres and Explosives Concept Scope Future perspectives References

Chapter 17: Forensic Investigation in Forest Fires Concept Scope Future perspectives References Chapter 18: Forensic Linguistics Concept Scope Future perspectives References Chapter 19: Lophoscopy Concept Scope Future perspectives References Chapter 20: Forensic Odontology Concept Scope Future perspectives References Chapter 21: Forensic Medicine Concept Scope Future perspectives References Chapter 21.1: Clinical Forensic Medicine Concept Scope Future perspectives References Chapter 21.2: Forensic Pathology Concept Scope Future perspectives References Chapter 22: Forensic Psychology Concept Scope Future perspectives References Chapter 23: Forensic Psychiatry Concept Scope Future perspectives

References Chapter 24: Forensic Chemistry Concept Scope Future perspectives References Chapter 25: Forensic Social Work Concept Scope Future perspectives References Chapter 26: Forensic Toxicology Concept Scope Future perspectives References Index

TRIBUTE TO DUARTE NUNO VIEIRA The Forensic Sciences today are an attractive “brave new world” from a scientific point of view and due to their individual and social impact. These are the sciences that attract most media attention, partly because the constant challenges that forensic scientists have to face. They are full of surprises and encourage everyday more and more young people to seek them out. The complexity arises from the great diversity of disciplines, the degree of subspecialization of many of them, the multidisciplinary nature of examinations, their articulation with the Law and particularly due to the fact that they work directly or indirectly with very vulnerable people whose fundamental rights may be in question.

Forensic Sciences eventually become a passion rather than just a mission in the relentless search for the best way to ensure that justice is served. This means that they are not an easy task, not free of anguish or even suffering. But without a shadow of a doubt they are highly rewarding for those who take them on with honesty, humility and humanity, naturally associated with intelligence, wisdom, common sense, impartiality, independence and ideally a spirit of adventure and a good dose of non-conformism and even irreverence, always searching for the best solutions in each case.

It is therefore important to share the example of professionals of exceptional merit who believe in and live these values. They are the ones who inspire us to strive each day to exceed our capacity to do good and do it well.

It is a privilege to Portugal to have one of the most famous forensic specialists in the world, Professor Duarte Nuno Vieira. The brief notes on his career below give us an idea of the national and international dimension of this master of the Forensic Sciences. He has nurtured their development and taken our country’s name to every continent, where he has dignified it with the quality and degree of excellence that he always imposes on expertises, training and scientific investigation. He was the person responsible for unifying the Forensic Medicine services in Portugal, in 2000, when he contributed to set up the National Institute of Legal Medicine, later renamed National Institute of Legal Medicine and Forensic Sciences, which he ran for 13 years. He raised the quality of forensic procedures, harmonized them and made sure that they reached the recognition in Portugal and abroad. He also managed to achieve the social and humanitarian role of these sciences and used them to solve cases of serious violation of human rights in the highest international instances. More recently, he became Dean of the Faculty of Medicine of University of Coimbra, a position never before occupied by a specialist in Forensic Medicine. This is of great value to the promotion of the Forensic Sciences and their recognition at university level.

However, the value and especially the recognition of a great personality sometimes make others uncomfortable.

They do everything to eliminate the source of their discomfort even at the cost of considerable collateral damage that is frequently higher for third parties, institutions and society than for the target himself. Professor Duarte Nuno Vieira also has this type of experience in his “curriculum”. Nevertheless, this constraint merely exalted his qualities and triggered a reaction of unquestionable recognition from his peers and the institutions that work in this area. He serenely carried on at the cutting edge of Forensic Sciences in Portugal and in the world … this is because the true power lies only in effective and healthy wisdom placed at the service of humanity with simplicity and altruism without seeking the limelight. Therefore, it is hardly a surprise that it was the international community that first honored his merit when he was awarded with the Douglas Lucas Medal, the highest international award in the field of Forensic Sciences, by the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, in 2014.

And so, albeit in a simple form, but deeply felt, that he is now honored by many of those who admire, respect, recognize and acknowledge the work that he has developed and who consider him a rare and fundamental source of inspiration.

Many people joined in the initiative of paying tribute to Professor Duarte Nuno Vieira without hesitation as soon as the challenge was laid down to participate in this work. We know that many others would also have liked to do so, but no space would be big enough to include them all. We have therefore focused on Portuguese authors, many of them his disciples.

As the most eminent figure in the Forensic Sciences, we obviously did not want to miss the chance of including a contribution from him in this book. He was invited to contribute and accepted immediately, as is his wont, without knowing that it would be dedicated to him. We hope that he will forgive our audacity …

We hope that this work will satisfy its readers’ interest and expectations and that it will also inspire them.

We would like to thank the recipient of our dedication for the example and the paths that he has opened up and we

hope that many others he will be able to explore aiming to promote and encourage the development of the Forensic Sciences here and abroad.

Teresa MagalhĂŁes Ricardo Jorge Dinis-Oliveira

Duarte Nuno Vieira is a Dean and Full Professor of the Faculty of Medicine of the University of Coimbra, where he is also the President of the Scientific and Pedagogic Councils. He is also a Full Professor of the Faculty of Health Sciences of Beira Interior University and has been a Visiting Professor of several other Portuguese, European and South American universities, not to mention the United Nations mandated University for Peace. He is currently President of the European Council of Legal Medicine, Scientific Advisory Board of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Ibero-American Network of Legal Medicine Institutions and Portuguese Association for Bodily Injury Assessment and Vice-President of the European Confederation of Experts on Evaluation and Repair of Bodily Injury and Coordinator of Assessment of Bodily Injury of the Portuguese Medical Association. He has been President of the International Academy of Legal Medicine, of the International Association of Forensic Sciences, of the World Association of Police Medical Officers, of the Mediterranean Academy of Forensic Sciences and of the LatinAmerican Association of Medical Law. He was also President of the Portuguese National Institute of Legal Medicine and Forensic Sciences and of the Portuguese Medico-Legal Council.

He is Europe’s representative in the Forensic Medicine subgroup of the International Forensic Summit and President of the Thematic Federation on Legal and Forensic Medicine of the European Union of Medical Specialists.

He is a member of the Executive Committee of the Working Group on Forensic Pathology and Anthropology of the Standing Committee on Disaster Victim Identification and the Advisory Committee of the Humanitarian and Human Rights Resource Center of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences. He also belongs to the Scientific Board of the European Institute of Training in Evaluation and Compensation of Bodily Injury in Paris and the group of expert assessors at the European Science Foundation, where he is Coordinator of the Forensic Science Centre.

He is a specialist in Forensic and Occupational Medicine recognized by the Portuguese Medical Association; has competences in the management of health services, evaluation of bodily injury and medical examination for social security and experimental pathology. He works on a regular basis as forensic consultant for the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, and he is member of the Forensic Advisory Board of the International Committee of the Red Cross and member of the Forensic Expert Group of the International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims.

Among many other positions, he was also a member of Portuguese National Council of Ethics for Life Sciences and of the National Commission for Civil Protection, and President of specialty group in Forensic Medicine of the Portuguese Medical Association and the Department of Medical Education of the Coimbra Faculty of Medicine.

He has published more than 250 articles in scientific journals and he is the editor or co-editor of eight books and author or co-author of more than 40 chapters in books. He has presented over 1000 papers at scientific meetings. He belongs to the editorial board of the main international Legal Medicine and Forensic Science journals and of the national journals of 12 countries on five continents. He has been the keynote speaker at more than 500 conferences in European, Asian, African, Middle Eastern and Australasian countries and the entire American continent.

He has received 15 scientific awards in Portugal and abroad. He has received 18 distinctions and honorary titles from the media, scientific societies, universities, municipalities and governments of European, Asian, African and

North, Central and South American countries. In 2014, he was awarded the Douglas Lucas Medal by the American Academy of Forensic Sciences. He is chaired member number 11 of the Portuguese Academy of Medicine, Honorary Academic of the Royal Academy of Medicine of Granada (Spain) and the Academy of Medicine of Uruguay.

He has been a member, as a forensic expert, of many international missions in several countries in Europe, Latin America, the Middle East, Africa, Australasia and Asia, especially in the field of human rights under the auspices of the United Nations, International Red Cross, European Commission and International Amnesty, among others (Iraq, Palestine, Ukraine, Libya, Egypt, Paraguay, Nigeria, Moldova, Mexico, Kazakhstan, Colombia, Indonesia, Morocco, Kosovo, Kyrgyzstan, Brazil, Tajikistan, Papua New Guinea, Greece, Jordan, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia, Argentina, Bahrain, Mali, Ghana, Tunisia, Georgia, etc.). He has also been a guest member of many national and international working groups and commissions.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS EDITORS/AUTHORS Ricardo Jorge Dinis-Oliveira Degree in Pharmaceutical Sciences and Ph.D. in Toxicology, Faculty of Pharmacy of University of Porto (FFUP).

European Ph.D., University of Porto (UP). Postdoctoral in Clinical and Forensic Toxicology, Portuguese National Funding Agency for Science, Research and Technology (FCT). Postgraduate in Forensic Medicine, Faculty of Medicine of University of Porto (FMUP). Assistant Professor with Habilitation in Forensic Sciences, University Institute of Health Sciences (IUCS-CESPU) and FMUP. Director of the 1st Cycle of Studies in Forensic Laboratorial Sciences of IUCS-CESPU. Researcher of the Research Unit on Applied Molecular Biosciences (UCIBIOREQUIMTE) and Institute of Research and Advanced Training in Health Sciences and Technologies (IINFACTS).

Coordinator of the Research Area in Toxicology and Metabolism, IINFACTS. Charter Member, Coordinator of the scientific area of Forensic Toxicology and President elect, Portuguese Association of Forensic Sciences (APCF).

Teresa Magalhães Medical Specialist in Forensic Medicine by the Portuguese Medical Association (OM). Ph.D. in Medicine with Habilitation in Medical Sociology, Faculty of Medicine of University of Porto (FMUP). Invited Full Professor, FMUP and University Institute of Health Sciences (IUCS-CESPU). Director, Department of Legal Medicine and Forensic Sciences, FMUP. Director of the 2nd and 3rd Cycles of Studies in Forensic Sciences, University of Porto (UP).

Portugal Delegate, European Council of Legal Medicine. Director (2001–2014), North Branch of National Institute of Legal Medicine and Forensic Sciences (INMLCF).

AUTHORS Alexandra Guedes Degree and Ph.D. in Geology, Faculty of Sciences of University of Porto (FCUP). Invited Assistant Professor, FCUP. Researcher, Institute of Earth Sciences (ICT), Portugal. Portuguese representative, Initiative on Forensic Geology – Geoforensic International Network, International Union of Geological Sciences.

Alexandra Serra Degree and Ph.D. in Psychology of Deviant Behavior, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences of University of Porto (FPCEUP). Assistant Professor, University Institute of Health Sciences (IUCS–CESPU).

Ana Corte-Real Degree in Dentistry, Faculty of Medicine of University of Coimbra (FMUC). Master and Ph.D., FMUC. Member of the Assembly and International Relationship Coordinator, FMUC. Director, Forensic Dentistry Laboratory, FMUC. Member, Medical Odontology Legal Working Group, International Academy of Legal Medicine. Áurea Carvalho Degree in Biology and Geology (Teaching of), Faculty of Sciences of University of Porto (FCUP). Ph.D. in Forensic Sciences, University of Porto (UP). Invited Assistant Professor, University Institute of Health Sciences (IUCSCESPU). Researcher, Institute of Earth Sciences (ICT), Portugal. Charter Member, Directive Member and Coordinator of the scientific areas of Forensic Geology and Palynology, Portuguese Association of Forensic Sciences (APCF).

Carina Fernandes Degree in Biology, Faculty of Sciences of University of Porto (FCUP). M.Sc. in Forensic Medicine, Institute of Biomedical Sciences Abel Salazar of University of Porto (ICBAS-UP). M.Sc. in Questioned Documents and Judicial Analysis of Intellectual and Industrial Property, Autonomous University of Barcelona. Handwriting and Document Examiner and CEO, Núcleo de Ciências Forenses Laboratory (Associate Member, Expert Working Group of the European Network of Forensic Science Institutes – ENFHEX). Coordinator of the scientific area of Document and

Handwriting Examination, Portuguese Association of Forensic Sciences (APCF).

Catarina Prado e Castro Degree in Biology and M.Sc. in Ecology, Faculty of Sciences and Technology of University of Coimbra (FCTUC).

Ph.D. in Biology (specialization in Ecology), Faculty of Sciences of University of Lisbon (FCUL). Invited Assistant Professor, University Institute of Health Sciences (IUCS-CESPU) and Egas Moniz Superior Institute of Health Sciences. Researcher, Center for Forensic Science (CCF), Coimbra.

Cláudia Ribeiro Degree in Pharmaceutical Sciences, University Institute of Health Sciences (IUCS-CESPU). Ph.D. in Biomedical Sciences, Institute of Biomedical Sciences Abel Salazar of University of Porto (ICBAS-UP). Researcher, Institute of Research and Advanced Training in Health Sciences and Technologies (IINFACTS).

Daniel Pérez-Mongiovi Degree in Biology, University of Malaga (Spain). Ph.D. in Development Cellular and Molecular Biology, University of Paris 6 (France). Invited Assistant Professor, University Institute of Health Sciences (IUCS-CESPU).

Dmitri Tchepel Degree in Mechanical Engineering, University of Aveiro (UA).

Domingos Xavier Viegas Graduated in Mechanical Engineering, Technical Superior Institute (IST). Ph.D. in Aerodynamics, University of Coimbra (UC). Full Professor, Mechanical Engineering Department, Faculty of Sciences and Technology of University of Coimbra (FCTUC). President of the Board, Association for the Development of Industrial Aerodynamics (ADAI).

Coordinator, Center for Forest Fires Research (CEIF). Director, Laboratory on Forest Fire Research (LEIF).

Duarte Nuno Vieira See “Tribute to Duarte Nuno Vieira”.

Fábio Fernandes Degree in Mechanical Engineering, University of Aveiro (UA). Researcher, Center for Mechanical Technology and Automation (TEMA), UA. Ph.D. student, Department of Mechanical Engineering, UA. Francisco Corte-Real Degree, M.Sc. and Ph.D. in Medicine (Forensic Medicine), University of Coimbra (UC). Specialist in Forensic Medicine, Portuguese Medical Association (OM). Associate Professor with Habilitation, Faculty of Medicine of University of Coimbra (FMUC). Former President, Portuguese Society of Human Genetics and the College of Forensic Medicine Specialty of OM. Responsible for DNA profiles Database, North Branch of National Institute of Legal Medicine and Forensic Sciences (INMLCF).

Helena Ribeiro Degree and Ph.D. in Agricultural Sciences, Faculty of Sciences of University of Porto (FCUP). Palynologist, Palynological Laboratory, FCUP. Member, Institute of Earth Sciences (ICT), Portugal Hugo Cardoso Degree in Biology, University of Lisbon (UL). M.Sc. in Biological Anthropology, University of Coimbra (UC). Ph.D. in Anthropology, McMaster University, Ontario (Canada). Postdoctoral, National Museum of Natural History, Lisbon, Department of Anthropology of UC and Faculty of Medicine of University of Porto (FMUP). Assistant Professor (Department of Archaeology) and Co-director, Center for Forensic Research at Simon Fraser University, British Columbia (Canada).

Inês Morais Caldas Degree in Dental Medicine and Ph.D. in Dental Anatomy and Orofacial Genetics, Faculty of Dental Medicine of University of Porto (FMDUP). Postgraduate in Legal Medicine and in Bodily Damage Assessment. Certified as competent person in Forensic Age Estimation, Study Group on Forensic Age Diagnostics. Assistant Professor with

Habilitation, FMDUP. João Marques-Teixeira Degree in Medicine and Specialist in Psychiatry. Associated Professor, Faculty of Psychology and Sciences of Education of University of Porto (FPCEUP). Director, Laboratory of Neuropsychophysiology, FPCEUP. Charter Member and Director, Neurobios – Institute of Neurosciences, Porto. Coordinator of the Committee for the creation of the Forensic Psychiatry Subspecialty of the Portuguese Medical Association (OM).

José Góis Degree and Ph.D. (Thermodynamics area) in Mechanical Engineering, University of Coimbra (UC). Assistant Professor, Mechanical Engineering Department, Faculty of Science and Technology of University of Coimbra (FCTUC). Researcher, Energetic Materials Laboratory (LEDAP) and Association for the Development of Industrial Aerodynamics (ADAI). President (since 1998), Portuguese Association of Studies and Engineering of Explosives (AP3E). President (2008–2010), European Federation of Explosives Engineers (EFEE) between 2008 and 2010.

Judite Nunes Degree in Biology and M.Sc. in Biology of Plant Development and Reproduction, Faculty of Sciences of University of Porto (FCUP). Postgraduate in Document Examination, Autonomous University of Barcelona. Handwriting and Document Examiner, and CEO, Núcleo de Ciências Forenses Laboratory (Associate Member, Expert Working Group of the European Network of Forensic Science Institutes – ENFHEX). Coordinator of the scientific area of Document and Handwriting Examination, Portuguese Association of Forensic Sciences (APCF).

Luís Marques Fernandes Degree in Law, University Portucalense Infante D. Henrique. Postgraduate in Forensic Ballistics Investigations, Cranfield University, England. Ph.D. student in Forensic Sciences, University of Porto (UP). Lecturer, University Institute of Health Sciences (IUCS-CESPU).

Luísa Marinho Degree in Pathologic, Cytologic and Tanathologic Anatomy, Porto School of Health Technology. M.Sc. in Human Evolution and Human Biology, University of Coimbra (UC). Ph.D. student, Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University, British Columbia (Canada).

Madalena Sofia Oliveira Degree in Social Work, Fernando Pessoa University (UFP). M.Sc. in Forensic Sciences, Faculty of Medicine of University of Porto (FMUP). Ph.D. in Social Sciences/Psychology/Victimology, UFP. Coordinator of the scientific area of Forensic Social Work, Portuguese Association of Forensic Sciences (APCF).

Malcolm Coulthard Degree in English Language and Literature, University of Sheffield, United Kingdom. Emeritus Professor of Forensic Linguistics, Aston University, Birmingham (United Kingdom). Editor of the books An Introduction to Forensic Linguistics and Handbook of Forensic Linguistics. Co-editor of the international bilingual journal Language and Law/Linguagem e Direito.

Nuno Araújo Degree in Nursing, Nursing School of Porto (ESEP). M.Sc. in Business Sciences, Fernando Pessoa University (UFP).

Lecturer, Polytechnic Health Institute of North (IPSN-CESPU). Nurse Specialist in Rehabilitation Nursing. Ph.D. student in General Management – Business Strategy and Development, ISCTE – University Institute of Lisbon.

Researcher, Institute of Research and Advanced Training in Health Sciences and Technologies (IINFACTS).

Pedro Correia Degree in Law, University of Minho (UM). Expert in Lophoscopy, North Branch of Judiciary Police. Postgraduate in Forensic Sciences, University of Porto (UP). Invited Lecturer, University Institute of Health Sciences (IUCS-CESPU) and Faculty of Medicine of University of Porto (FMUP).

Pedro Fernandes

Degree in Forensic and Criminal Sciences, University Institute of Health Sciences (IUCS-CESPU). M.Sc. in Computer Security, Faculty of Sciences of University of Lisbon (FCUL). Security Consultant, Unisys Portugal, Information Systems and Layer8 – Shield Domain. Coordinator of the scientific area of Computer Forensics, Portuguese Association of Forensic Sciences (APCF).

Ricardo Alves de Sousa Degree and M.Sc. in Mechanical Engineering, University of Porto (UP). Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering, University of Aveiro (UA). Assistant Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering, UA. Coordinator of the Division of Plastic Forming, GRIDS-TEMA research group.

Rui Sousa-Silva Degree in Modern Languages and Literature – French and English, Faculty of Arts, University of Porto (FLUP). Ph.D. in Applied Linguistics – Forensic Linguistics, Aston University, Birmingham (United Kingdom). Postdoctoral researcher in Forensic Linguistics and Cybercrime, Linguistics Center, University of Porto (UP). Invited Assistant Professor, FLUP and University Institute of Health Sciences (IUCS-CESPU). Emeritus Professor of Forensic Linguistics, Aston University, Birmingham (United Kingdom). Co-editor of the international bilingual journal Language and Law/Linguagem e Direito.

Sofia Frazão Degree in Medicine, Faculty of Medicine of University of Porto (FMUP). Assistant of Legal Medicine and Coordinator, Forensic Pathology Unit, North Branch of National Institute of Legal Medicine and Forensic Sciences (INMLCF). Coordinator, Forensic and Medical-Legal Office of Douro. President, College of Legal Medicine of the Portuguese Medical Association (OM). Lecturer, Institute of Biomedical Sciences Abel Salazar of University of Porto (ICBAS-UP), University Institute of Health Sciences (IUCS-CESPU) and FMUP. M.Sc. and Ph.D. student in Forensic Sciences, University of Porto (UP).

Tânia Nogueira Degree in Biology, Faculty of Sciences of University of Porto (FCUP). Specialization in Forensic Sciences, University Institute of Health Sciences (IUCS-CESPU). M.Sc. in Legal Medicine, Institute of Biomedical Sciences Abel Salazar of University of Porto (ICBAS-UP). Postgraduate in Criminal Investigation, Portuguese Institute of Psychology and Other Sciences (INSPSIC). Certificates, Loci Forensics B.V., Niew-Vennep (The Netherlands).

Vânia Pereira Degree in Biology, M.Sc. in Forensic Genetics and Ph.D. in Biology (with focus in population and forensic genetics), Faculty of Sciences of University of Porto (FCUP). Postdoctoral and Assistant Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen.

PREFACE I want to start by thanking the invitation to preface this book – a tribute to Professor Duarte Nuno Vieira.

Friendship is a gift and a privilege, but at the same time is an added difficulty. Thus it is not easy for me to make an objective portrayal of Professor Duarte Nuno Vieira, since I cannot, nor do I want to be set free from the condition of friend. I will try to be extremely honest and let the objectivity of the data reflect the reality. Albert Einstein said “if your intention is to describe the truth, do it with simplicity and leave the elegance for the tailor”.

Prefacing a book is always a difficult task. One fears discouraging the reader who makes the mistake of starting reading the prologue and not first chapter. This is not the case for two reasons, first, because talk of Forensic Sciences is an exciting task that does not allow us neutrality, nor distance, and secondly because talking about Professor Duarte Nuno Vieira is always a pleasure and it is a duty of justice towards his work and his person.

From the ordeal and torture as a means to get the truth at any price, to modern techniques for the detection of trace substances in fingerprints is a long way that mankind has developed thanks to the efforts of people who did not accept resignation as a tool to deal with reality. The Forensic Sciences are the clearest paradigm of applied science with a goal that transcends mere scientific curiosity and leads the field of the search for truth and to assist the justice in achieving the objective of providing a fair verdict. Rapid advances in fields such as Molecular Biology, Chemical Analysis Techniques or Genetics feature some methods that can help us bring new answers to old questions.

There is the need to structure meeting points where the transfer of knowledge and methodology is not fully resolved today, despite the spectacular advances in communications and access to scientific knowledge. Only from multidisciplinary teams is possible to find an effective response. Setting up centers where different specialties that have common goals in Forensic Sciences is the best choice to boost laboratories and to incorporate and adapt new technologies. With these institutions, it would be possible to guarantee a dynamic flow of knowledge and initiatives, but unfortunately, this development does not occur in an harmonious and balanced manner, between the various disciplines that make up the Forensic Sciences. For instance it is the rapid development of Forensic Toxicology and Genetics, a vitality that is expressed in the number of publications and interest in both fields in this both previously cited forensic fields. Nevertheless, in other areas Forensic Science lack a similar scientific impact in terms of innovation and number of publications (Forensic Pathology, Forensic Entomology, Clinical Forensic Medicine, etc.).

This fact deserves a deep reflection; we cannot accept some simplistic explanations, relative to research funding to different areas, because we are facing a consequence not a cause. We must assume our responsibilities in terms of our share of the blame in this situation, associated with certain academic and clinical inertia, and a dose of complacency and comfort, which have effectively damped isolated efforts to break these limitations. Unfortunately since we are facing a problem of critical mass, we need an effort of networking; it is needed collective efforts and conviction that only what is desired, can be achieved.

It is in this field must highlight the work of Professor Duarte Nuno Vieira. His vision of the problem led him to consolidate and strengthen the National Institute of Legal Medicine in Portugal, looking for a point of confluence and development of Forensic Sciences; the number of publications in journals of impact written by the Professor’s team reflects the fruits of their labor. This is the right time to recall the figure of his master, Professor Fernando Oliveira de Sá, who is fundamental to understand the trajectory of Professor Duarte Nuno Vieira. Professor Fernando Oliveira de Sá was able to instill into him proper values and ideas. European Forensic Medicine owes an acknowledgment and has an outstanding debt to this important personality.

Nietzsche said: “Only who builds the future has the right to judge the past.” Professor Duarte Nuno Vieira was, and still is, a builder of the future, his career as president of the leading scientific societies in the world is outstanding, and he has always played a proactive role in revitalizing and making effective change in improvement of Forensic Sciences. Thanks to his initiative, his modern vision of Forensic Sciences, he was able to discuss his concerns that gradually crystallized in a brilliant career.

It should be recalled at this point that the progress made in his country has not been easy – being independent and consistent with its own principles has led to a personal cost. It is not easy to be free and it is even less easier to assume the responsibility from clear ideas and for structured and functional Forensic Sciences, an essential tool for an effective and fair justice.

We cannot incorporate in the already overfed Iberian museum of lost opportunities, the non-consolidation of a modern project not only in line, but also comparable to the most advanced European countries scientific possibilities.

I want to thank for all Professor Duarte Nuno Vieira did, on behalf of those who come daily to the services of Portuguese Forensic Medicine aiming to facilitate an efficient and adequate answer from the Forensic Sciences, improving it through a modern vision of his expertise and social work. They do not know who created the means and conditions, but without the work and perseverance of our protagonist, they could not solve their problems. Thank you for your past work, and I am sure that your future work will continue to be an effort to maintain Forensic Sciences as independent, outstanding and competent as possible.

Aurelio Luna Maldonado Full Professor of Forensic Medicine, University of Murcia President of Spanish Society of Legal and Forensic Medicine

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION TO FORENSIC SCIENCES Teresa Magalhães and Ricardo Jorge Dinis-Oliveira The term “forensic” comes from the Latin word forēnsis (meaning marketplace or forum) (Simpson and Weiner, 1989). It was originally used to identify areas in ancient Rome where business and public affairs were dealt with and government debates and trials were held. The accused and accuser presented their considerations and the one with the best argument won (Crispino and Houck, 2013; Simpson and Weiner, 1989). After it first appeared in English in 1659, its modern usage “forensic” was gradually limited to the field of criminal investigation. It is still used today to describe places where justice is administered, such as the courts, or in reference to other Law-related issues (such as forensic professional when referring to a judicial professional). This is why many people consider that the Forensic Sciences are sciences of the forum, or Law, especially Criminal Law, giving the idea that Forensic Sciences and crime always go hand in hand.

However, as of the 19th century, a need arose for different agents in the justice system, especially judges, prosecutors and lawyers, regarding matters that required special, often scientific expertise that went beyond knowledge of the Law and the general life experience. As a result, some natural, health and social sciences, among others, began to develop specific forensic branches, i.e., they began to apply their knowledge to matters of Law. Thus, the expression "Forensic Sciences" has come to refer not only to issues related to the Law, but also scientific and social questions, wich keeps expanding due to the new social, legal, scientific and technological advances (e.g., Computer Forensics or Forensic Linguistics applied to new communication technologies).

The concept of “Forensic Sciences” is subject to a number of interpretations that influence and are influenced by each country or region’s system. These interpretations also depend on each author or system and their nature as well as the specificity of what they practice. Some associate Forensic Sciences to Criminalistics and therefore to the crime (Crispino and Houck, 2013), for example. But nowadays the concept refers broadly to the application of science in matters of Law (Crispino and Houck, 2013). It is used to identify a growing number of specialties and subspecialties, particularly in Medicine and Life Sciences, that recurs scientifically valid and legally admissible methods to clarify evidence that is being examined, or may be in the future, at judicial and judiciary level (Wecht, 2005), under criminal or some other branch of the Law. There are therefore separate disciplines within the Forensic Sciences, many of which are mentioned in this book.

Noteworthy that due to the multidisciplinary nature of forensic work and the way by which these sciences are organized in each country, it is not always possible to enumerate their different disciplines in the same way. It is also difficult to draw exact separation lines between some of them, as certain practices and procedures are common to them and may overlap. One example is Forensic Pathology and Forensic Histopathology, which in some countries are considered a single discipline and are practiced by the same specialist. On the other hand, they are separate in other countries, as in Portugal, where a specialist in Forensic Medicine performs the forensic autopsy and a specialist in Forensic Histopathology performs a histological analysis. There are also difficulties in systematizing certain areas. This is the case of Legal or Forensic Medicine, which, as we will see in the Chapter 21, may include multiple forensic disciplines, all depending on how each political and geographical area is organized.

During the selection of the different Forensic Sciences to include in this work, a number of other emerging sciences could certainly have been chosen. Most of them are sub-specializations of their parent sciences, either because of specificities resulting from scientific advances or, sometimes, for reasons of personal or institutional preference. Sub-specializations have appeared in a number of medical specialties, for example, and today we have areas such as Forensic Pediatrics, Forensic imaging, Forensic Psychiatry, Forensic Otorhinolaryngology and Forensic Ophthalmology, among others. The fragmentation of the Forensic Sciences naturally results in some entropy and thus we hope that this work will stimulate reflection also regarding these concerns.

In spite of the vast diversity in these sciences, they are united by a common and fundamental point, which comprises their object, aim and general methodology. This common point should preferably be the driving force of good, constant cooperation between them, given that the solution of many cases increasingly requires a multidisciplinary involvement.

We can say with a high certainty that it is the person as victim of intentional violence the main object of the intervention (Magalhães, 2005). Many forms of violence plague our everyday lives and often result in severe physical and psychological injury to the person who directly or indirectly experience them. Violence also has a great socioeconomic impact on victims and their families and on society in general. Many regard this phenomenon as a contagious epidemic that keeps growing and is constantly taking new forms (as violence is passed on from one generation to the next). Indeed, physical violence, which itself is still increasing, has advanced in the last century to forms of so-called virtual violence (on the Internet), which are still able to cause real and devastating damage. The very nature of this “epidemic” means that it is associated with the legal issues. Thus the Law system of several countries, though with substantial variations, present control or interventional measures (i.e., punish and reparative), which were developed in response to all or some of these new forms of violence. The involvement of the Forensic Sciences is important at all levels of the prevention of violence.

The primary aim of these sciences is to produce forensic scientific proof. This means using expert technical and scientific procedures aiming to obtain scientific proof through the analysis of the obtained evidence in the wake of criminal or civil case. However, it is in criminal matters that the Forensic Sciences are most important because the issues in question are related with recognizably serious violations of people’s fundamental rights. A forensic expertise is almost always justified by the need of a social response to a conflict or violation of rights, as expressed by the formal mechanisms of any democratic rule of Law. It is aimed to produce evidence that can be used in court in accordance with procedural Law. Indeed, the proof is the touchstone in the administration of justice, because when a fact is discussed, it is the evidence produced that often determines the decisions of the authorities on the commission of the fact, its author and his/her liability.

Regarding the general methodology used in forensic expertise, when providing scientific proof, it includes two steps, which are examination/analysis and the findings/results interpretation. The former includes obtaining results which might constitute a way of proof; this is particularly relevant in determining that a fact has been occurred and its related circumstances. Findings/results interpretation consists on the use of technical and scientific expertise to produce an evidence based conclusion.

This forensic expertise is usually followed by a forensic report describing the results of the examinations/analysis performed, interpreting these results and reaching a duly reasoned conclusion (Magalhães et al., 2010). The report must abide by specific rules in order to meet the intended purpose, depending on the forensic science in question and area of Law in which the expertise takes place. The forensic expert role is to provide an impartial, unbiased, objective answer to a question or request for clarification. He/she should explain its complexity using simple words so that lawyers and others can appreciate it on the basis of concrete aspects and reach an appropriate decision, regardless of whether it is judicial or non-judicial (Magalhães et al., 2010). Forensic experts are responsible for drafting forensic reports, although they may include evidence or opinions from other specialists (Magalhães et al., 2010).

Forensic Sciences depend on how the specialized services that perform the expertise are organized in each country or region, especially in criminal matters, as they have to be articulated with other formal instances (due to the specificity of urgent preventive actions to detect and collect the evidence of a crime). This is regardless of the fact that Forensic Sciences may also be placed at the service of a public authority or on an individual basis. Indeed, private forensic expertise have been growing in recent years, given the need felt by lawyers, insurance companies and even private individuals to overthrow judicial decisions based on forensic evidence produced by other instances, even if they are official. The right to rebuttal is fundamental and must be respected. As long as it is produced by a forensic expert who is similarly or more qualified than the one who made the first expertise, counterevidence allows discussion of the case and results in safer, more reasoned judicial decisions and ensures that justice is effective. Private forensic expertise can also be an essential tool for lawyers and insurance companies in the production of counterevidence that helps settle cases out of court. By reducing the financial and emotional costs, and the traditional delays in court cases, they can be an undeniable advantage for the parties involved.

Nonetheless, regardless of the differences in the ways of obtaining scientific forensic proof, we feel that the most important factor is the forensic expert and his/her knowledge, skills, experience, and especially his/her attitude to such complex, delicate issues as those that he/she have to deal with. The impact of his/her expert conclusions in solving cases is generally substantial. It is therefore important for governments and scientific associations in this area to handle the question of the skills and qualifications of forensic expert (Magalhães et al., 2014).

REFERENCES

Crispino F and Houck MM. Principles of forensic science, in Encyclopedia of forensic sciences (Siegel JA and Saukko PJ Eds.), Academic Press, Waltham, 278–281, 2013.

Magalhães T. The victim as object of the medico-legal intervention. Acta medica portuguesa, 18:453–458, 2005.

Magalhães T, Dinis-Oliveira RJ and Santos A. Teaching forensic medicine in the University of Porto. Journal of forensic and legal medicine, 25:45–48, 2014.

Magalhães T, Real FC, Santos JC and Vieira DN. Recomendações gerais para a realização de relatórios periciais de clínica forense relativos ao dano pós-traumático. Revista portuguesa do dano corporal, XIX:53–61, 2010.

Simpson J and Weiner E. The Oxford English dictionary, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1989.

Wecht CH. The history of legal medicine. The journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 33:245– 251, 2005.

CHAPTER 2 FORENSIC SCIENCES TODAY AND ITS PATH TO THE FUTURE Duarte Nuno Vieira In a chapter of a book published a few years ago, I mentioned that the world is a mosaic of different geographical, social, cultural, economic, political, legal and other realities and that these differences could be found even in parts of the globe where, for reasons of greater geographical, sociocultural and even political proximity, they should be expected to be smaller (Vieira, 2012). I also wrote that Europe, and particularly the 28 countries making up the European Union, were a clear example of this, because it continues to constitute a mixture of very different realities at many levels, in spite of different attempts at harmonization.

Just like others did later on, I also pointed out that all this diversity was inevitably reflected in different forensic systems and organizations. In the 193 countries recognized by the United Nations, there are very different situations in terms of structure, organization and operation of forensic services (Teitelbaum, 2015). Indeed, we find countries that do not have any forensic services at all and this is not just the case of those that are underdeveloped in many aspects.

There are others in which this is explained by their small size, which does not justify having their own forensic services and thus they use those of neighboring countries (Luxembourg is a perfect example). It is also obvious that the degree of a country’s economic and sociocultural development is not always directly proportional to the degree of development, structure and quality of its forensic services. All too often, we come across the so-called first world countries that show considerable shortcomings and deficiencies in their forensic organizations and others that, in spite of sometimes being considered underdeveloped, have particularly impressive forensic services, at least in terms of the experts’ training and the quality of their work.

Where forensics is concerned, these differences between nations can be found at many levels, as I have already said in the past (Vieira, 2012). And they begin in their very concepts and names. There are many countries in the world where the expression “Forensic Sciences” does not even exist. This is the case especially in French-speaking countries, which use the term “Legal Medicine”, and in many countries of Latin influence, where this same expression is also deeply rooted due to cultural tradition. These differences can be even more accentuated when referring to specific areas within the Forensic Sciences. For example, if we look specifically at Forensic Medicine, we find countries where medical expertises come under the umbrella of Forensic Medicine, while others call them Legal Medicine, an expression that others use to describe Medical or Health Law. Many countries have been calling this area Legal and Forensic Medicine in an effort to overcome uncertainties arising from using only one of these names.

Indeed, this was the solution chosen by the international Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine. The same choice was made by the European Union of Medical Specialists (UEMS) to refer to this medical specialization. However, the discussion on the most appropriate term continues in this and many other areas of Forensic Sciences.

These differences between countries are also substantially reflected in forensic practices and procedures and the training and preparation of forensic professionals. Using the example of Forensic Medicine practices again, we find that in some countries, these specialists are called forensic pathologists and their sphere of action only involves forensic autopsies or examinations related to cadavers. In others, Forensic Pathology also involves examinations of the living for Criminal Law purposes. In many other countries it goes much further and covers not only examinations of cadavers but also all examinations of the living that may have forensic repercussions, regardless of the branch of Law in which they occur, and also in the context of examinations in a field that some call Insurance Medicine. We find that the education and training of these professionals varies considerably from one country to another even when their qualifications are very similar. We come across countries where any physician, with no forensic training, can be called on to act as a forensic specialist and where Forensic Medicine is regarded as a secondary option that is underestimated from a social and occupational point of view. On the other hand, there are countries where Forensic Medicine is a highly regarded area and has perfectly structured, specialized training times (five years in some cases) and a socioprofessional status that is very similar to or sometimes even higher than other medical specializations.

Actions and procedures can also vary considerably even when the concept and content of the area are similar. To use an example of Forensic Medicine once again, it is easy to see that the rules and situations that determine when an autopsy should be performed vary considerably from one country to another. In some, all violent deaths require an

autopsy. In others, there is a coroner system and though it is not always run by people with the necessary skills, they have the power to decide on the forensic measures to be taken. In others, forensic options depend on a judicial decision. There are still others where we find highly variable situations where it may depend merely on whether another physician requests an autopsy. Furthermore, in many countries the medical specialist in this area is involved in each situation from the start. She/he participates in the examination of the scene at which the body was found and this procedure is considered part of the subsequent autopsy, while this does not happen in others. There are still others where the examination of the scene, clothing or even histological analyses may be performed by other professionals or even different institutions that sometimes do not cooperate or work together and each produces its own reports, which are never seen as a whole. We also find countries where a forensic expert may request all the complementary autopsy tests that she/he considers scientifically justifiable for basing his/her expert opinion. This is a decision that represents the total technical and scientific independence that should exist in forensic examinations. In others, this can only be done with the permission of the entity in charge of the case, who in many cases is a judge, which may mean that the forensic expert may have to complete his/her report without having had the opportunity to perform tests that might be essential to an appropriate interpretation and decision.

There are also considerable structural differences between forensic systems. As mentioned above, the more developed countries are not always the best examples. There are countries where forensic services belong to the Ministry of Justice and others where they are answerable to the Ministry of Internal Affairs (or equivalent), the Ministry of Education (essentially at universities) or the Ministry of Health. There are countries with a variety of services belonging to different ministries and others where forensic examinations have been progressively passed on to the private sector. Some countries’ forensic services have been centralized into a single national forensic sciences agency or a single national Legal Medicine agency (which often handle many forensic areas in addition to Medicine).

Some have regional or even municipal agencies; others single police forensic laboratories that deal with all forensic examinations except Medicine. There are also countries with different forensic laboratories (which may or not belong to the police), with areas similar to Legal Medicine or university services.

In many cases, these systems overlap technology and human resources without coordination with considerable increase of inefficiency. As we can see, there is a huge variety of forensic organizations due to the way in which different countries have organized them. This is naturally reflected in substantial differences in the terms on which forensic services are provided. They range from countries where they do not go beyond simple forensic examinations to others where this work also serves, accordingly to the Law, to promote under and postgraduate teaching and training, the development of scientific investigation and appropriate quality control. All these differences were made very clear in a book describing different systems in countries on the five continents published by Ubelaker, in 2015, along the lines of a book about the different circumstances in Europe published by Madea and Saukko, in 2008.

One might ask whether there is an ideal forensic system. Is there a perfectly balanced system that could be the role model for everyone? The answer is obviously no. There are no perfect systems. All of them have their strong and weak points. There is no way we could imagine a single forensic system to be used by all countries, given that each one is different in terms of size, economic power, sociocultural traditions and legal systems. But as I have already had the opportunity to write, the truth is that any forensic system can be good if it guarantees competence, objectivity, reliability, independence, impartiality, quality, speed and prudence and, even if there are different structures involved, there is close collaboration and coordination between them.

Nonetheless, experience has clearly shown that countries that set up national Forensic Sciences agencies (centralized services where all the specialists involved in a forensic investigation work together and share premises, knowledge and human and technological resources) are the ones that have achieved the best results and highest visibility on the international scene. The fact is that all forensic areas today have a considerable multidisciplinary component. No single specialist in any area of Forensic Sciences knows everything there is to know and no area of Forensic Science holds all the knowledge or diversity of perspectives that may be necessary for the success of a forensic investigation. Coordinated work in full collaboration between different specialists and forensic areas is increasingly essential these days. We cannot continue to see disputes as to roles and powers between forensic institutions and agencies, which only hinder the investigation and cause individual and collective frustration.

It is also important to note that a high-quality forensic system is not one that merely performs forensic examinations. A service that aspires to levels of excellence can only do so if its forensic work is complemented by education and training, scientific investigation and strict quality control. These factors are essential to the quality of forensic services, which must be undertaken simultaneously. They complete, complement and empower each other.

Indeed, what could be better for promoting ongoing learning and showing the need to constantly further knowledge than having to teach and respond to the concerns, doubts and requirements of people who want to learn? What could

be better for developing forensic skills, new areas of Forensic Sciences, a proper perception of the potential and limitations of forensic work and the biases that can affect it than being involved in scientific research projects that also foster the development of their own sciences? Moreover, Forensic Sciences offer huge potential for research and has a great impact on many very important aspects of social dynamics and development (Magalhães et al., 2013). What could be better than the Forensic Sciences for learning more about crime, violence or accidents? What science could be better than forensics for studying such diverse phenomena of great social impact as suicide, substance abuse or domestic violence? Just to name a few examples. Knowing about something is not the same as agreeing with it; it is a fundamental factor in taking more effective preventive measures. Furthermore, forensic research can have a highly significant impact on many other areas of knowledge.

There has been a lot of discussion in recent decades about how to strengthen the Forensic Sciences in the 21st century. While the paths to be followed will certainly depend on different realities, the report “Strengthening forensic science in the United States: a path forward” by the United States National Academy of Sciences (2009) is probably one of the best documents on the subject produced to date. This is mainly for two reasons: it received a substantial contribution from people looking from the outside in, and it was based on in-depth, particularly comprehensive scientific reflection. I feel that the following aspects taken from the 13 recommendations in this report can be considered fundamental factors for improving Forensic Sciences in any country in the future.

• Forensic services should be centralized in a single national forensic science agency or at least be overseen by a body responsible for coordinating the country’s forensic work. It would also be in charge of defining best practices and methodologies, incorporating new technology in forensic practice, accrediting forensic services, fostering training and scientific research in the different fields, disseminating the potential and limitations of forensic science and making sure that human, technological and logistic resources were put to good use, among many other equally important aspects; • Standard operating procedures would have to be defined for each forensic area, including reports and giving evidence in court; • It is needed to have an adequate funding for research in Forensic Sciences, which would have to address forensic methods, possible deviations due to human error, the degree of certainty of the expert conclusions, etc.; • It is necessary to make forensic services independent and remove them from the administrative oversight of interested parties in the investigation process, especially the police and judges, i.e. people whose interests might affect the performance and results of the forensic work (or at least raise this suspicion). This would maximize the image of independence and impartiality that forensic work must have; • The work must be done in conjunction or collaboration with government and university laboratories, and other public and private institutions and labs thereby avoiding unnecessary duplication of resources and existing capacities. International cooperation is also recommended; • Forensic services should be accredited and certified, and quality control must be used to limit forensic work to institutions that meet all requirements; • A forensic code of ethics must be drawn up and severe penalties imposed for those who disobey it; • It is necessary to work with universities and other teaching organizations to develop under and postgraduate educational programs in the field of Legal and Forensic Medicine and the general dissemination of the limits and potential of this area; • Crime scene investigation must be improved so that truly multidisciplinary teams can make the most of forensic information that their work uncovers; • Interoperable databases must be set up in the different forensic fields and there must be mechanisms allowing articulation with bases in other countries, while respecting applicable ethical and legal provisions.

Although these 10 principles are very simple, they have huge potential for the effective development of Forensic Sciences. Nevertheless, they will not be easy to implement due to existing individual and institutional interests. These interests arise from pressures often associated with profound ignorance, on the part of many political decision-makers, on the reality of this field and even with the fact that many forensic bodies are run by people who are totally unqualified to do so and lack the knowledge to be able to even reflect on the best road forward and what targets and goals to set. These administrators do no more than perform (often poor) day-to-day management that adds nothing and offers no glimpse of future development or growth. All they do is generate individual and collective frustration and discouragement and conditions that only foster stagnation.

REFERENCES Madea B and Sauko P. Forensic medicine in Europe, Schmidt-Römhild, Lubeck, 2008.

Magalhães T, Santos A and Dinis-Oliveira RJ. Forensic medicine: a forgotten world of opportunities and challenges for research. Archives of medical research, 44:479–481, 2013.

National Academy of Sciences. Strengthening forensic science in the United States: a path forward, National Academies Press, Washington, 2009.

Teitelbaum J. Forensic science around the world. Forensic sciences review, 27:70–72, 2015.

Ubelaker DH. The global practice of forensic science, Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, West Sussex, 2015.

Vieira DN. Forensic systems and forensic research: an international perspective, in Forensic science: current issues, future directions (Ubelaker D Ed.), Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, West Sussex, 366–373, 2012.

CHAPTER 3 FORENSIC ANTHROPOLOGY Hugo Cardoso and LuĂ­sa Marinho

CONCEPT Forensic Anthropology is a relatively new but well-established sub-field of the Forensic Sciences that applies Physical Anthropology theory and methods, particularly those concerned with the biology of the human skeleton, to legal matters. This is generically how the two main currently active Forensic Anthropology professional associations, the American Board of Forensic Anthropology (ABFA) in the US, and the Forensic Anthropology Society of Europe (FASE) in Europe, define the discipline.

The scope and goals of Forensic Anthropology, however, have varied widely (Komar and Buikstra, 2008).

Historically, the forensic anthropologist was almost exclusively asked to contribute to the identification of skeletonized human remains found under suspicious circumstances. More recently, however, Forensic Anthropology has witnessed a growing expansion of its scope. Developments in other sciences, particularly in Molecular Biology and its growing contribution to genetic identification, has driven this expansion by questioning the traditional role of the forensic anthropologist in contributing exclusively to identification. In addition, the increasing demands of the legal system for scientific rigor, particularly in the US (Dirkmaat et al., 2008), led to a significant redefinition of how Forensic Anthropology is carried out, in particular by generating the need for further comparative samples and the development of quantitative data analysis techniques.

On the other hand, Forensic Anthropology training and practices differ from country to country, and the very context in which Forensic Anthropology case work is carried out can be quite diverse. Forensic anthropologists have increasingly assumed an important role in the planning and in the response to mass disaster situations, where they are involved in victim identification (Cattaneo et al., 2006). Examples include the terrorist attack of 9/11 on the World Trade Center, the 2004 tsunami in Thailand, or the 2010 earthquake in Haiti. The role of the forensic anthropologist has also expanded to investigations into human rights violations and genocide, in contexts of civil or military conflict.

Examples include work carried out in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Rwanda, Guatemala or Argentina. In these circumstances, Forensic Anthropology has contributed decisively not only to recover and identify the victims in mass and/or clandestine graves, but also to the analysis of bone trauma, which has been proven crucial to the prosecution of offenders (Kimmerle and Baraybar, 2008).

Currently, Forensic Anthropology is said to have three main goals (Christensen et al., 2014). The first goal refers to the analysis of the death scene, assisting or leading the detection and recovery of skeletonized human remains, documenting the circumstances in which the remains were found and determining time since death. The second goal takes place in the laboratory, where forensic anthropologists are concerned with the identification of skeletonized or unrecognizable human remains. The third and final goal concerns the interpretation of the general circumstances in which such death occurred, as well as the traumatic lesions identified in the skeleton, which will help determine the cause and the manner of death. Finally, the scope of Forensic Anthropology has also expanded to investigations involving living individuals, namely age estimation of undocumented children and adults, in cases of criminal liability or asylum requests.

SCOPE The goals and scope of Forensic Anthropology overlap to some degree to those of other complementary forensic sub-fields, due to the multidisciplinary nature of forensic investigations. A good example of that convergence of goals is seen with Forensic Odontology, but the expertise of other forensic specialists, such as forensic pathologists, forensic archaeologists and forensic entomologists, also occurs at different stages of the investigation to address forensic medical questions (Christensen et al., 2015).

In a forensic medical investigation involving human skeletonized remains, the examination starts with an analysis

of the scene where the remains are found. Information collected during detection and recovery of the remains provide some of the initial answers to forensic medical questions that forensic anthropologists seek, specifically time elapsed since death and reconstruction of post mortem events or general circumstances of death. At this stage, thorough detection and recovery of skeletal material at the scene is paramount to the success of the lab analysis where positive identification and determination of the cause of death are undertaken. This is why the examination of a death scene where human skeletonized remains are found should be carried out by or with the assistance of a forensic anthropologist, given his/her skills in osteological identification.

Forensic Archaeology, which adopts traditional methods and techniques of archaeology, plays an essential role in the documentation and subsequent reconstitution of the death scene in the laboratory, in order to assist the forensic anthropologist in reconstructing post mortem events surrounding the death of the individual (Dupras et al., 2006). At this point, the expert will also be able to determine whether the material is of medical-legal interest, namely whether it is osteological material or not, distinguishing between human and nonhuman bone, and determining whether the material is or is not contemporary (Schultz, 2012). In addition, the collection of contextual information in situ using archaeological field methods is essential for the forensic anthropologist to recognize taphonomic changes that occurred between the death of the individual and the detection of the remains. Recognizing these changes allows for the reconstruction of the deposition conditions and sequence of post mortem events, as well as the circumstances in which death may have occurred, and for the estimation of time since death.

At a second stage, it is the forensic anthropologist’s responsibility to attempt to positively identify the recovered remains. The identification of a certain individual from his/her skeletonized remains is done first by reconstructing general identifying features, which collectively are described as the biological profile. This profile includes sex, age, stature and ancestry of the individual. The biological profile obtained by the forensic anthropologist is strictly morphological because genetic identification is the responsibility of Forensic Genetics and Biology, which can however only be successful if there is any presumption of identity. After obtaining a biological profile, which will narrow down the number of possible matches, the individual will be effectively identified by comparative methods.

The success of this comparative study depends on the identification of individualizing features, i.e., characteristics that are unique to a particular individual, observed both in the post mortem examination and that can be compared against available ante mortem information from the small number of possible matches that are now candidates for identification. A good example of this type of analysis to establish positive identification is a comparison between a fracture sustained by the individual in life which can be observed both in the post mortem examination of the remains, and in a radiograph of the potential candidate which can be provided by the family (Cunha, 2006). At this stage of the investigation, the identification process is often interdisciplinary, involving not only forensic pathologists, but also physicians, dentists, and criminal investigators.

The subsequent step in the analysis of the remains by the forensic anthropologist is dedicated to assist the forensic pathologist in the determination of cause and manner of death. This is accomplished through a detailed bone trauma analysis, which will inform about the chronology and types of injuries. Determining the cause of death (i.e., illness, disease state, injury, or a combination of these factors, which produced a pathological change and led to the death or contributed to it) from the skeletonized remains analysis can be done only in cases of a violent death, when trauma to the bone can be effectively observed, such as fractures or projectile injuries. Consequently, there will be many circumstances, even violent, wherein cause of death remains undetermined. Furthermore, establishing the manner of death (i.e., the distinction between a death resulting from a homicide, suicide, accident, a natural cause or undetermined) does not necessarily require the identification of traumatic bone lesions and, in certain circumstances, it can even be done without determining a cause of death. On the other hand, the differential diagnosis between homicide, suicide or accident can be more difficult to establish than the actual cause of death. The forensic anthropologist is responsible for recognizing, identifying, describing and interpreting the forces that may be involved in the production of the traumatic injuries affecting the skeleton. However, the determination of the lethality of the lesions and the diagnosis of the cause of death are the responsibility of the forensic pathologist. Indeed, many traumatic lesions identified in the skeleton may not be sufficient to cause the death of the individual, such as a fracture of a hand bone. Nonetheless, it is the osteological analysis carried out by the forensic anthropologist that will provide the information with which the forensic pathologist will determine the probability of an injury to cause death.

The role of the forensic anthropologist in the investigations of living individuals is restricted almost exclusively to the estimation of age of undocumented individuals, especially children, adolescents and young adults (Introna and Campobasso, 2006). The increasing phenomena of illegal migration to Europe and other parts of the developed world, takes more individuals to their destinations without identification. In some cases, these illegal migrants are unaccompanied children and adolescents who seek asylum, and are protected by a minority status. In other cases, they

get involved or are the suspect of criminal activities and age becomes crucial information to determine criminal unaccountability. In other circumstances, such as pornography, child abuse or exploitation of child labor, undocumented children may be involved and, under the Law of each country, it may be required to estimate the age so that the appropriate legal framework is applied to both victim and aggressor. Current recommendations for age estimation in the living include an overall physical examination performed by a physician, followed by a radiographic study of the left hand, the clavicles and the oral cavity, to assess physical growth status.

FUTURE PERSPECTIVES Traditionally, a forensic anthropologist has only provided consultation to determine the biological profile of skeletonized human remains, as the use of traditional methods of identification, i.e., visual identification of the individual, of the clothing and personal belongings, or identification through tattoos or fingerprints, were usually precluded. Currently, the growing field of Forensic Anthropology alongside the increased visibility and internationalization of its expertise raise a number of challenges in various areas.

One such challenge consists of the growing collective need for certification of their activity. Currently, only the American Board of Forensic Anthropology (ABFA) and the Forensic Anthropology Society of Europe (FASE) certify forensic anthropologists. This certification is intended to ensure a minimum level of technical and scientific quality for active professionals, by promoting professional qualification and proficiency, which is the key for the proper administration of justice.

Related to the certification of experts is the accreditation of laboratories under which Forensic Anthropology examinations are undertaken. This accreditation recognizes the technical and scientific capabilities and capacities of the laboratories to support these examinations. However, deficiencies in infrastructure, lack of adequate equipment and qualified personnel are still common in many laboratories, and overcoming these limitations is now strongly dependent on structural financial problems.

Also related to certification is the challenge of harmonization of practices and scope of Forensic Anthropology.

Currently, The Scientific Working Group for Forensic Anthropology (SWGANTH, 2013) has been generating documentation, which is an essential tool for experts in the field. This group, created in the US, wishes to generate consensual best practices and recommendations, as well as to establish a set of minimum requirements necessary to undertake a Forensic Anthropology examination.

At a more practical level, Forensic Anthropology still faces today important challenges related to limited participation of experts in death scene examinations. Although this participation has become increasingly common, the death scene examinations are still often done in the total absence of an expert, with the consequent irreparable loss of information. In the laboratory, the demands are also higher today than ever before, with the expert being required to provide answers that must be rigorous, substantiated and validated, technically and scientifically. The far-reaching legal implications of a Forensic Anthropology examination require the expert to make updated and informed choices of the techniques she/he uses, in particular those which are validated and acknowledged for levels of accuracy and precision. This is so crucial that methods are being continuously and independently revised and tested.

Finally, the last challenge identified here has long-term implications and is related to training. Although there are now many forensic anthropologists placed full time in various institutions, particularly in the US, the employability of newly graduate students is reduced. This has to do with the small Forensic Anthropology caseload in developed nations, on one side. Investigation in Forensic Anthropology supports and has supported many young scientists in this area, but its relatively small scope and limited area of applied intervention will never satisfy the lack of employability in the professional sector. However, these limitations should never be justification for disinvestment in high quality technical and scientific training and/or in neglecting the importance of basic training in Biological Anthropology of future experts in Forensic Anthropology.

REFERENCES Cattaneo C, De Angelis D and Grandi M. Mass disasters, in Forensic anthropology and medicine: complementary sciences from recovery to cause of death, Humana Press, Totowa, New Jersey, 2006.

Christensen AM, Passalacqua NV and Bartelink EJ. Forensic anthropology: current methods and practice, Elsevier Academic Press, San Diego, California, 2014.

Christensen AM, Passalacqua NV, Schmunk GA, Fudenberg J, Hartnett K, Mitchell Jr. RA, Love JC, deJong J and Petaros A. The value and availability of forensic anthropological consultation in medicolegal death investigations. Forensic science, medicine, and pathology, 11:438–441, 2015.

Cunha E. Pathology as a factor of personal identity in forensic anthropology, in Forensic anthropology and medicine: complementary sciences from recovery to cause of death, Humana Press, Totowa, New Jersey, 2006.

Dirkmaat DC, Cabo LL, Ousley SD and Symes SA. New perspectives in forensic anthropology. American journal of physical anthropology, 47:33–52, 2008.

Dupras TL, Schultz JJ, Wheeler SM and Williams LJ. Forensic recovery of human remains. Archaeological approaches, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, 2006.

Introna F and Campobasso CP. Biological vs legal age of living individuals, in Forensic anthropology and medicine: complementary sciences from recovery to cause of death, Humana Press, Totowa, New Jersey, 2006.

Kimmerle EH and Baraybar JP. Skeletal trauma: identification of injuries resulting from human rights abuse and armed conflict, Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton, Florida, 2008.

Komar D and Buikstra JE. Forensic anthropology: contemporary theory and practice, Oxford University Press, New York, 2008.

Schultz JJ. Determining the forensic significance of skeletal remains, in A companion to forensic anthropology, WileyBlackwell, Malden, Massachusets, 2012.

Scientific Working Group for Forensic Anthropology. Education and training, 2013, available at: www.swganth.org.

Accessed: 10 november 2015.