Macroscopical Findings on Soil-Embedded Skeletal Remains Allowing the Exclusion of a Forensically Relevant Lay Time

Dating skeletal remains with luminol-chemiluminescence. Validity, intra- and interobserver error

“…These techniques are, however, expensive, and their reliability has so far only been tested on small samples [9,12,[16][17][18][19][20][21]. Recently, Verhoff and Kreutz systematically reviewed published, commonly used methods in their literature survey and, on the basis of their results, developed their own recommendations for a practical approach [3]. Among the numerous morphological, chemical, physical, and histological dating techniques, the measurement of the chemiluminescence (CL) of weathered organic traces on bone finds by means of the luminol reaction is widely used as an inexpensive, quick, and simple method.…”

“…From a judiciary point of view, finds are considered forensically relevant when the post mortem interval is less than 30-50 years [1][2][3].…”

The impact of burial period on compact bone microstructure: Histological analysis of matrix loss and cell integrity in human bones exhumed from tropical soil

“…In these cases, the diagenetic trajectory may be different to others [52,53]. Verhoff and Kreutz [6] conclude that skeletons with identical post mortem interval from the same cemetery may show different qualitative and quantitative signs of decomposition. Bone is known to survive for more than 10 5 years in many burial contexts and less than 10 3 years in others [53].…”

“…When performing bone analyzes, it is possible to differentiate human and nonhuman bones [1], predict time of burial [2,3] and age at death, diseases [4] and other many questions of forensic relevance [5][6][7][8]. However, these analyzes can reveal many difficulties regarding interpretation.…”