Assessing Human Versus Nonhuman Remains in Australia: Expertise and Success Rates

Forensic anthropologists are routinely called by law enforcement personnel to identify human/nonhuman skeletal species when attending crime scenes. The use of crime scene photographs of skeletal remains for such assessments has become more common, as with camera technology in mobile phones. However, such images are often not taken to the same standard as crime scene photography.

Without access to physical specimens, forensic anthropologists may rely on comparative anatomical atlases to make such determinations. These atlases should include local fauna that may share similar gross skeletal anatomy to that of human bone. This study aimed to examine at which qualification level an individual would be able to identify human/nonhuman skeletal species above chance using photographs, whether performance would improve with access to a comparative anatomical atlas, and whether its utility would decrease with more highly skilled individuals.

Forty-seven individuals from universities across Western Australia took part in this study, grouped according to their highest qualification level. Ten images of inconspicuously buried skeletal elements were presented, taken in situ at various times of day, with no additional context provided. Only one skeletal element was featured in each image. On their first attempt, participants performed their human/nonhuman species identification without access to an anatomical atlas; access was provided on their second attempt. Participants also self-reported the usefulness of the anatomical atlas in their decision-making.

Results indicated significantly better overall performance in human/nonhuman species identification in postgraduate qualification groups compared to undergraduates. There was no significant difference between attempts, and between self-reported usefulness of the anatomical atlas and qualification group. This study underscored the importance of experience and training in performing such examinations, rather than solely relying on anatomical atlases. Skeletal species identification must be done by suitably qualified individuals. However, these atlases may be useful when there is no access to specialised equipment.