The Utility of Forensic Anthropology in the Medical Examiner's Office

Abstract

Over the past few decades, the field of forensic anthropology has seen major advancements and experienced a considerable growth of professionals in medical examiner/coroner offices. Despite this expansion, misconceptions regarding the role and utility of the anthropologist in the medicolegal setting still exist. This article brings together practitioners employed full-time in four medical examiner's offices, with each practitioner providing a unique perspective and emphasis regarding their role as an anthropologist. Discussed is the history of the anthropology division in each office as well as the types of casework and ancillary duties completed by the anthropologists. Consistently, the anthropologists are involved in the search and recovery of human remains, managing long-term unidentified cases, facilitating disposition of unclaimed decedents, and developing mass disaster protocols for their respective agency. Also consistent across the four offices is the fact that the anthropologists receive far more consult requests for trauma evaluation of nonskeletonized cases than any other type of case.

Keywords: Forensic anthropology; Forensic pathology; Medical examiner office; Trauma analysis.

Figure 1

Breakdown (in percent) of typical anthropological activity in 2015 for Harris County Institute of Forensic Sciences (HCIFS), District of Columbia Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (DC-OCME), and the Tarrant County Office of the Chief Medical Examiner and Forensic Laboratories (TCME), while New York City Office of Chief Medical Examiner (NYC-OCME) shows the average activity over multiple years. The percentages do not reflect the volume of casework, but rather the distribution of workload. The activity categories are considered mutually exclusive even though a single case depicted in the percentage may be counted in more than one category (e.g., field recovery, consult-report, and pretrial). These activities represent significantly different interactions with casework.

Figure 2

Breakdown (in percent) of anthropological analysis requested in 2015 for Harris County Institute of Forensic Sciences (HCIFS), District of Columbia Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (DC-OCME), and the Tarrant County Office of the Chief Medical Examiner and Forensic Laboratories (TCME), while New York City Office of Chief Medical Examiner (NYC-OCME) shows the average over multiple years. In order to provide continuity between the offices depicted, the analyses performed were distilled into five categories, with four representing specific types of analyses requested. The identification category includes cases in which the anthropologist performed antemortem and postmortem comparisons. The “Other” category for NYC-OCME represents analyses such as reassociation of fragmentary remains and evaluation of exhumation cases from City Burial. The data are presented in percentages considering that the categories are not mutually exclusive, meaning that a case submitted for analysis may involve multiple categories.