Missing person searches can entail much time, effort, and resources. With scientific data and techniques increasingly available to law enforcement and investigations units, can these tools be used to predict likely areas where persons or remains may be discovered, especially in cases where little to no information about the disappearance is available? A retrospective study of seventy-three (73) cases was conducted in Onondaga County, New York, U.S.A., in order to explore this question. Quantitative (geospatial) and qualitative (investigator notes) data were utilized to determine whether patterns exist that may assist in investigations of recent and "cold" missing person cases. Results showed a majority of cases with relative proximity (<5 miles) between victim last seen (VLS) and body recovered (BR) locations. Furthermore, investigators' notes demonstrated repeated descriptors reflecting natural or cultural features associated with hidden, clandestine provenance (e.g., near bodies of water, wooded areas). With future external validation of this study, consistent priority areas may be identified as foci of searches; these priority areas ideally should be thoroughly checked/cleared before the search zone is expanded.

A World War II mass grave was recovered in 1999 by a U.S. Army team and yielded 20 complete skeletons. A case study involving the identification of one of these individuals is presented in this article. The thought processes and problems that presented themselves to the forensic anthropologist and odontologist are detailed. Methods used to establish identity are described. This case demonstrates how standard operating procedures used by a forensic anthropologist and odontologist can narrow the field of possible individuals associated with remains, and with extra information--in this case, a military radiograph taken in 1941--can ultimately establish the identity of a decedent. The authors learned that some medical records, which at first glance appear to be excess or irrelevant, may contain the item required to be certain that a case is strong in support of a recommended identification.

The frequently cited 2009 National Academy of Sciences Report entitled "Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward" has become a focal point of forensic science practitioners' discussions and research since its publication. One of its recommendations is "Standardized Terminology and Reporting". Little has been published to date on this topic, although conversations and dialogs on the subject are ongoing. The upshot of this communication is to draw attention to the problem of one term in particular, perimortem, which may be only the proverbial "tip of the iceberg" in the lexicon-related concerns of forensic scientists. Even if it is an isolated issue, it is one that reflects the need for a consensus on term use and definitions by interdisciplinary practitioners who are currently using the term haphazardly, to the confusion of colleagues and potentially finders-of-fact in the courts.