Abstract

Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) has occasionally been used by anthropologists and forensic scientists to look at morphological characteristics that certain implements leave on bone. However, few studies have addressed techniques or protocols for assessing quantitative differences between tool marks on bone made by different bladed implements. In this study, the statistical variation in cut mark width was examined between control and test samples on bone using a scalpel blade, paring knife, and kitchen utility knife. Statistically significant differences (p < .0005) were found between cut marks made by the same knife under control and test conditions for all three knife types used in the study. When the control sample and test samples were examined individually for differences in mean variation between knife types, significant differences were also found (p < .0005). While significant differences in cut mark width were found, caution should be used in trying to classify individual cut marks as being inflicted by a particular implement, due to the overlap in cut mark width that exists between different knife types. When combined, both quantitative and qualitative analyses of cut marks should prove to be more useful in trying to identify a suspect weapon. Furthermore, the application of SEM can be particularly useful for assessing many of these features.

References

1.
Maples
W R
.
Trauma analysis by the forensic anthropologist
. In:
Reichs
K J
, editor.
Forensic osteology: advances in the identification of human remains
.
Illinois
,
Charles C Thomas
,
1986
;
218
-
28
.
2.
Sauer
N J
.
The timing of injuries and manner of death: distinguishing among antemortem, perimortem, and postmortem trauma
. In:
Reichs
K J
, editor.
Forensic osteology: advances in the identification of human remains
, 2nd edition.
Illinois
,
Charles C Thomas Press
,
1998
;
321
-
32
.
3.
Reichs
K J
.
Postmortem dismemberment: recovery, analysis and interpretation
. In:
Reichs
K J
, editor.
Forensic osteology: advances in the identification of human remains
, 2nd edition.
Illinois
,
Charles C Thomas Press
,
1998
;
353
-
88
.
4.
Walsh-Haney
H A
.
Sharp-force trauma analysis and the forensic anthropologist: techniques advocated by William R. Maples, Ph.D.
J Forensic Sci
1999
;
44
(
4
):
720
-
3
.
5.
Berryman
H E
,
Smith
O C
,
Symes
S A
.
Diameter of cranial gunshot wounds as a function of bullet caliber
.
J Forensic Sci
1995
;
40
(
5
):
751
-
4
.
6.
Murdock
J J
,
Cavallo
J
,
Kreiser
J
,
Meyers
C
,
Morris
B
,
Sibert
B
, et al
Theory of identification, range of striae comparison reports and modified glossary definitions—an AFTE criteria for identification committee report
.
AFTE J
1990
;
22
:
275
-
9
.
7.
Burd
D Q
,
Kirk
P L
.
Tool marks—factors involved in their comparison and use as evidence
.
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology
1942
;
32
:
679
-
86
.
8.
Houck
M M
.
Skeletal trauma and the individualization of knife marks in bones
. In:
Reichs
K J
, editor.
Forensic osteology: advances in the identification of human remains
, 2nd edition.
Illinois
,
Charles C Thomas Press
,
1998
;
410
-
24
.
9.
Rao
V J
,
Hart
R
.
Tool mark in cartilage of stabbing victim
.
J Forensic Sci
1983
;
28
(
3
):
794
-
9
.
10.
Symes
S A
.
Bones: bullets, burns, bludgeons, blunderers, and why
.
Bone trauma workshop presented to 48th annual meeting of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences
,
Nashville, Tennessee
,
1996
.
11.
Sivaram
S
,
Sehgal
V N
,
Singh
R P
.
Unusual instrument marks on bones
.
Forensic Science
 0300-9432
1977
;
9
:
109
-
10
.
12.
Bonte
W
.
Tool marks in bone and cartilage
.
J Forensic Sci
1975
;
20
:
315
-
25
.
13.
Bromage
T G
,
Boyde
A
.
Microscopic criteria for the determination of directionality of cutmarks on bone
.
Am J Phys Anthropol
1984
;
65
:
359
-
66
.
This content is only available via PDF.
You do not currently have access to this content.