Forensic Anthropology

Question 1

Define forensic anthropology

Answer 1

A subfield of anthropology
Focused on the life, death and post-life history of an individual, reconstructed from analyzing their skeletal remains and the context in which they are located

Question 2

What type of remains could be involved in a forensic anthropological case?

Answer 2

Remains that are unrecognizable by virtue or being burnt, fragmented, decomposed or partially decomposed

Question 3

How far is the scope of cases involving forensic anthropology?

Answer 3

One individual to serial killer to mass fatalities

Question 4

When was forensic anthropology first used in ON?

Answer 4

1977

Question 5

Describe the practice of forensic anthropology.

Answer 5

Work with police to search for bodies, body parts and graves in forensic contexts
Recover remains

Question 6

What are the key functions of forensic anthropology?

Answer 6

Identification as human
Excavation
Evidence collection

Question 7

What do forensic anthropologists do once remains are recovered?

Answer 7

Conduct a skeletal examination

Question 8

What does a skeletal examination consist of?

Answer 8

Biological profile
Trauma analysis
Taphonomy analysis

Question 9

What characteristics are included in a biological profile?

Answer 9

Age, ancestry, height, sex

Question 10

What is taphonomy analysis?

Answer 10

Determining what happened to body after death

Question 11

What are the two most common subjects of forensic anthropological testimony?

Answer 11

Identity
Trauma analysis

Question 12

What are the three main types of trauma analyses conducted by forensic anthropologists?

Answer 12

Nature of injury
Determining sequence and number of injury events
Determine class or individualizing characteristics of the weapon(s) used

Question 13

What is the limitation of trauma analysis in forensic anthropology?

Answer 13

Will only be able to identify trauma if it occurred at the level of bones

Question 14

What is a limitation to weapon analysis of forensic anthropology?

Answer 14

Can only assess weapon characteristics if weapon leaves an imprint on bone

Question 15

What is ancestry?

Answer 15

Portion of a person’s genetic makeup that relates to their family’s origins

Question 16

What is race?

Answer 16

Cultural construct that reflects beliefs and attitudes about different groups of people which are often associated with specific physical characteristics.

Question 17

Why can’t race be assessed from the skeleton?

Answer 17

Refers to aspects of an individual’s socio-political or cultural identity

Question 18

What is ethnicity?

Answer 18

Groups of people who identify with one another on the basis of language, religion or other cultural characteristics.

Question 19

Briefly describe the case of R. v. Hamilton.

Answer 19

Police investigation into missing persons case
Hamilton targeted in undercover op
Admission: Shot the victim and their dog, set fire to the body in burn pit. Parts not completely burned scattered

Question 20

How was forensic anthropology used in R. v. Hamilton?

Answer 20

Forensic anthropologist identified charred human and dog bone fragments in burn pit and 13 human bones around Hamilton’s property
Details provided to undercover officers = confirmed
Admission = reliable

Question 21

What was the key issue in R. v. Hamilton?

Answer 21

Did Hamilton act in self-defence?

Question 22

Describe the case of R. v. Robert Pickton

Answer 22

Unprecedented 21-month-long excavation of Pickton’s pig farm, for the remains of missing women from Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside

Question 23

Describe how large the case of R. v . Robert Pickton was.

Answer 23

129 witnesses
1.3 million pages of documents

Question 24

Describe the process of admission for the Jane Doe bones in the Pickton trial.

Answer 24

Crown sought to tender the bones of Jane Doe as similar fact evidence.
Initially held it was admissible.
Defence applied for reconsideration, which was granted for failing to provide “some evidence” linking Pickton to the similar act.
On appeal: trial judge erred. There was indeed “some evidence”

Question 25

What is similar fact evidence?

Answer 25

Exception to the rule against the Crown introducing bad character evidence.

Question 26

What is the standard for SFE?

Answer 26

Balance of probabilities

Question 27

Describe the analysis of SFE.

Answer 27

Probative value v. prejudicial effect
Relies upon existence of “some evidence” to advance the argument in question.

Question 28

What was the “some evidence” linking Pickton to the Jane Doe Bones? (3)

Answer 28

Location of the Jane Doe heel and rib bones were found in close proximity to Pickton’s residential trailer and the slaughterhouse

Location of the Jane Doe bones found in close proximity to the butchered remains of the six victim named in the Indictment

DNA match between the Jane Doe heel and rib bones and the partial skull found in Mission

Question 29

What was the Crawford bone evidence in the Pickton trial?

Answer 29

Piece of long bone recovered from Pickton’s property linked by DNA to Wendy Crawford

Question 30

What was the defence argument against the Crawford evidence in the Pickton trial?

Answer 30

(1) Crown failed to establish that the bone represented Crawford’s remains
(2) It was not sufficient evidence to allow a reasonable jury to conclude Pickton murdered Crawford
(3) The evidence introduced “considerable moral prejudice”
Trial fairness also identified as an issue because the bone was destroyed, undermining the defence’s ability to have the bone analyzed by their own expert

Question 31

What was held by the trial judge re: crawford bone evidence at the Pickton trial?

Answer 31

Inadmissible

Question 32

What did the BCCA hold about the Crawford bone evidence in the Pickton trial?

Answer 32

Admissible, ample evidence linking Pickton to the SFE

Question 33

What did the BCCA hold about the trial judge in the Pickton trial in relation to the Crawford bone evidence?

Answer 33

TJ erred by applying a more stringent test than the some evidence standard and went beyond his role.

Question 34

Describe the process of the Lac-Megantic disaster.

Answer 34

Searchers find what they believe might be human remains.
Confirmed by forensic anthropologist,
If they are human, coroner is called so removal and ID process can begin.

Question 35

How did the Lac-Megantic disaster differ from a typical housed fire?

Answer 35

In typical house fire, bodies might not be badly burned.
In this disaster, bodies burned for many hours, remains predominantly bone.
Fuel: crude ol.

Question 36

What must be done to confirm a victim’s identity?

Answer 36

Two forensic methods should be used and should result in the same answer.

Question 37

What were the primary methods of ID in the Lac-Megantic disaster?

Answer 37

DNA analysis and dental records.

Question 38

What were the 6 key issues identified by the Transportation Safety Board of Canada’s Railways Investigation Report into the Lac-Megantic disaster?

Answer 38

1. Fire caused by inadequate repair to lead locamotive
2. Breaking force insufficinet, particularly in hand brake
3. Tank cars built to older standard, no enhanced saftey features.
4. MMA reactive rather than proactive
5. Transport Canada did not always follow up on reports of risk at MMA, which were frequent.
6. Oil in tank cares were more volatile than described.

Question 39

What was the forensic anthropology defence sought to introduce in R. v. Brown?

Answer 39

Photoanthropometric testimony in relation to videdo evidence depicting the perpetrators of a fatal shooting.

Question 40

What was the ultimate issue in R. v. Brown?

Answer 40

Identity of the men in the video,

Question 41

What was held about the forensic anthropology evidence in R. v. Brown?

Answer 41

Admissible

Question 42

Why did the trial judge in R. v. Brown rule the forensic anthropology evidence admissible?

Answer 42

Frailties not so significant to render it inadmissible, could be addressed in cross and charge to jury.

Question 43

What was the result of R. v. Brown?

Answer 43

Brown and Francis found guilty. Grant acquitted.