Jornal de pesquisa forense

Assessing Columbia County's Pennsylvania State Police Knowledge in Distinguishing Human vs. Nonhuman Bones: A Radical Case for Adding Basic Mammal Osteology to State Police Academy's Curriculum in Crime Scene Investigation

Abstract

Conrad B. Quintyn

Objective: In this study, the researcher asked 18 Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) officers in Columbia County to distinguish human from nonhuman bones. Based on the results, a radical case is made for adding mammal osteology field training as part of the state police academy’s curriculum in crime scene investigation (CSI).

Method: One to 16 stations of mammalian bone elements were set on a table in the researcher’s lab. A simple survey consisting of questions numbered 1 to 16 was created to reflect the stations with mammalian bone elements. An Institutional Review Board (IRB) review and approval was warranted because human subjects (i.e., PSP officers) were asked to participate in this study. The participants moved sequentially from station to station with unlimited time to observe the bones and marked their choice on the survey sheet: human or animal.

Result: The results showed that the PSP officers performed poorly. The total average percentage of the bones they managed to distinguish human vs. animal correctly was 25% and incorrectly 75%. These average percentages were based on the number of individuals who distinguished the bones correctly or incorrectly (at each bone station) divided by the 16 stations. Most participants could not distinguish bones of the vertebra, shoulder, chest, ribs, hand, pelvis, legs, foot, and toes.

Conclusion: Incorporating mammal osteology into CSI state police academy’s curriculum would save investigative time and limited resources (particularly for officers stationed in rural areas) and keep the chain of custody within the same agency. Overall, the turnaround time for analysis could be reduced from weeks to days (as opposed to sending evidence out for consultation).