Validation of the Total Body Score/Accumulated Degree-Day Model at Three Human Decomposition Facilities

Outdoor human decomposition in Sweden: A retrospective quantitative study of forensic‐taphonomic changes and postmortem interval in terrestrial and aquatic settings

“…The difference ranged from 10% to 90% between the estimated and actual ADD, with 31% wrongly estimated ADD in surface cases, even when using a 95% prediction interval (±2 SD). An inaccuracy of formulae that estimates ADD from TBS has previously been demonstrated by others [31–35].…”

“…The first publication that incorporated ambient temperature in a gross decomposition PMI method was published by Megyesi et al in 2005 [17]. The method is widely recognized and has since its publication been tested and adjusted to different contexts, showing great variation and often inconsistent results [31][32][33][34][35].…”

Recent advances in forensic anthropology: decomposition research

“…Dry, well-drained soils, and arid environments [hot or cold] are favourable to desiccation while moist and microbial-rich environments are conducive to adiopocere formation [38, 48, 49]. However, longitudinal research in central and eastern Texas as well as Tennessee demonstrate that bodies left on the ground surface often form a desiccated shell of skin around the otherwise skeletal remains even though all these environments are considered subtropical humid [50]. To investigate the causes of this phenomenon, Lennartz [51] conducted a pilot study examining desiccation and mummification of skin in central Texas.…”

“…The method uses a quantitative measure, mathematical description, considers the influence of temperature on the quantitative measure, and provides a quantitative measure of error. Furthermore, several studies have demonstrated high interobserver reliability in the quantifying decomposition using the TBS [50, 126].…”

“…[33] and Vass [30] has been associated with validation and improvement of these methods. Unfortunately, the one criterion stated by Henssge and Madea [120] that both methods have failed is for “proof of precision on independent materials.” Numerous studies have demonstrated these methods do not accurately or precisely estimate the PMI, especially as PMI advances or in extreme environments [50, 127–129]. Research has demonstrated a need for regional formulae that take into account climatic variables as well as different formulae depending on the scene context (indoor, outdoor, surface, buried, aquatic, clothed, unclothed), body position (hanging, burial depth), body condition (burned, cause of death, etc.…”