Citation

Pringle JK, Jervis JR, Hansen JD, Jones GM, Cassidy NJ, Cassella JP. J. Forensic Sci. 2012; 57(6): 1467-1486.

Affiliation

School of Physical Sciences & Geography, Keele University, William Smith Building, Keele, Staffordshire ST5 5BG, U.K. Department of Forensic and Crime Science, Staffordshire University, College Road, Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire ST4 2DE, U.K.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2012, American Society for Testing and Materials, Publisher John Wiley and Sons)

DOI

10.1111/j.1556-4029.2012.02151.x

PMID

22509973

Abstract

This study provides forensic search teams with systematic geophysical monitoring data over simulated clandestine graves for comparison to active cases. Simulated "wrapped" and "naked" burials were created. Multigeophysical surveys were collected over a 3-year monitoring period. Bulk ground resistivity, electrical resistivity imaging, multifrequency ground-penetrating radar (GPR), and grave and background "soil-water" conductivity data were collected. Resistivity surveys revealed the naked burial had consistently low-resistivity anomalies, whereas the wrapped burial had small, varying high-resistivity anomalies. GPR 110- to 900-MHz frequency surveys showed the wrapped burial could be detected throughout, with the "naked" burial mostly resolved. Two hundred and twenty-five megahertz frequency GPR data were optimal. "Soil-water" analyses showed rapidly increasing (year 1), slowly increasing (year 2), and decreasing (year 3) conductivity values. Results suggest resistivity and GPR surveys should be collected if target "wrapping" is unknown, with winter to spring surveys optimal. Resistivity surveys should be collected in clay-rich soils.

Language: en