Oct 21, 2014 - human remains recovered in the course of medico-legal investigation are ..... Forensics, which was created with a grant from Virtual. Museums ...
Author Query
U
N
C
O R
R
EC
TE
D
PR
O
O
FS
AQ1 Please confirm whether the inserted chapter number is correct here and in other occurrences.
0002220484.indd 1 Chapter No.: 1 Title Name: Groen
0002220484.indd
10/21/2014 2:35:22 PM
C h apt er 2 7
Canadian forensic archaeology: a Mari Usque ad Mare, ad hoc
FS
Derek Congram
Trudeau Centre for Peace, Conflict and Justice, Munk School of Global Affairs, Trinity College Site, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
O
O
AQ1
U
N
C
O R
R
EC
TE
D
This chapter draws upon publications, personal experience and a survey of others who have conducted forensic archaeological/anthropological fieldwork in Canada. This work typically involves the search for and recovery of human remains and associated objects and the contextual interpretation of their relative positions and condition. I will use the term forensic archaeology/forensic archaeologist throughout the text to refer to forensic search and recovery scene work. However, forensic archaeology as a distinct discipline and practice is not well established in Canada; many view it as a part of forensic anthropology and, in general, forensic archaeological work is performed by those who consider themselves to be biological anthropologists or biological anthropologists as well as archaeologists. Canada’s vastness, provincial administration of death investigation and lack of professional standardisation in the subject area mean that what is said here will inevitably be a generalisation and ultimately fail to capture all experience. Nevertheless, the relatively small number of cases that require archaeological expertise and the excellent response rate to the survey suggest that one can know with reasonable certainty how forensic archaeology is perceived and practised in Canada. Skinner and Bowie provide a thorough discussion of forensic anthropology in Canada, in which they consider archaeology as a part of forensic anthropology (Blau and Ubelaker 2009), and readers are directed to their chapter as a complement to this one. Here, I will take a narrower view by focusing on those activities that could be considered to be the sole responsibility of the forensic archaeologist in Canada.
one-third of the rate in the United States, UNODC 2011). Although a large majority of the population clings to the southern border, a relatively short drive due north will usually get you to a large, remote lake and/or wooded area. It is not surprising, then, that a large number of human remains recovered in the course of medico-legal investigation are simply scattered across the surface (and are often scavenged by animals), rather than buried in clandestine graves as appears to be the primary focus of forensic archaeologists in more densely populated countries (e.g. the United Kingdom; Hunter and Cropper, Chapter 23, this volume, and the Netherlands; de Leeuwe and Groen, Chapter 14, this volume). Of course, we cannot know with certainty that there are not many clandestine graves because, as the adage goes, absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence (Morse et al. 1976). Indeed, the disturbingly large number of missing First Nations (Native American) women from northern British Columbia along the so-called Highway of Tears (CBC 2009; Wilson 2004) and, first officially recognised in 2002, missing sex trade workers and drug users from the Vancouver area that were the centre of the William Pickton serial murder trial suggest that there may remain many undiscovered burials of murder victims (Skelton 2010). Death investigation in Canada is a provincial or territorial responsibility and its administration shows the dual influence of British and American systems. Of the 10 provinces and 3 territories, Alberta, Manitoba, Nova Scotia and Newfound and Labrador use a medical examiner system. All other provinces have a coroner system. In Ontario, coroners are medical doctors (as are medical examiners). There is not enough work to sustain full-time forensic archaeological expertise except, perhaps, in and around Canada’s largest city of Toronto (the fourth largest city in North America). An average of only 15% of deaths in the country are investigated by a coroner or medical examiner (Statistics Canada 2012), and only a very small proportion of these would ever benefit from archaeological expertise. In Ontario,
PR
Introduction
Medico-legal framework Canada is an expansive, sparsely populated and relatively peaceful place of about 35 million people. The murder rate is low (1.6 per 100,000 people in 2010, which is
Forensic Archaeology: A Global Perspective, First Edition. Edited by W.J. Mike Groen, Nicholas Márquez-Grant and Rob C. Janaway. © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2015 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
223
0002220484.indd 223
10/21/2014 2:35:22 PM
Americas
U
N
C
O R
R
EC
FS
O
TE
Although there were early applications of what could be deemed ‘archaeological’ techniques in crime scene examination in Canada (e.g. Skinner and Bowie 2009, 89), Jim Anderson at the University of Toronto laid the foundation for forensic archaeological work, despite not having practised it himself. Anderson taught anatomy and biological anthropology but also conducted extensive bioarchaeological work. Evidence of his contribution to both biological anthropology and archaeology is his publication: The Human Skeleton: A manual for Archaeologists (1962). In the late 1960s and early 1970s, Anderson supervised the first PhDs in biological anthropology in Canada (Meiklejohn 2012) and his combination of knowledge and experience helped produce cross-trained biological anthropologists/ archaeologists that would later serve as consultants for medico-legal purposes (e.g. Jerry Melbye, Mike Pietresewsky, Michael Spence, Jerome Cybulski). By virtue of geography, politics and history, Canada is heavily influenced by its southern neighbour. In the United States, the first publications on forensic archaeology were Morse et al. (1976) and (1983). Reflective of the times, whereby biological (forensic) anthropologists generally received cases in their labs, which had been collected by local law enforcement agents or death investigators, the 1976 article suggests that simply training police in archaeological techniques – rather than employing a trained, experienced archaeologist – may be sufficient for medico-legal investigation. In Canada, Mark Skinner and Richard Lazenby published: Found! Human Remains: A Field Manual for the Recovery of the Recent Human Skeleton (1984). Three years later, spurred by the discovery in Argentina of mass graves of victims of systematic political killings, Skinner (1987) published a prescient and oft-cited article titled Planning the archaeological recovery from recent mass graves. This article followed the initial work by the Argentine Forensic Anthropology Team (EAAF; Fondebrider and Scheinsohn, Chapter 43, this volume), but preceded by almost a decade the massive effort by the United Nations to excavate primary and secondary mass graves in the former Yugoslavia (on which members of EAAF, Skinner and two generations [teachers and students] of other Canadians worked for over a decade). Based on his experience in the former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and East Timor, Skinner continued to publish on forensic grave excavations, emphasising the critical role of archaeology with a focus on making contextual observations – mainly associations and provenance – as an essential part of certain medico-legal investigations
O
Founding fathers
involving human remains (Blau and Skinner 2005; Skinner and Jessee 2005; Skinner 2007; Skinner and Sterenberg 2005; Skinner et al. 2002, 2003). Skinner’s earlier publications seemed to echo that of Morse et al. in the United States, stating that those using archaeological techniques need not be archaeologists (e.g. Skinner 1987, 272). Later, however, he would advocate a specia lised role and standards for the archaeologist in directing mass grave excavations (e.g. Skinner et al. 2003). Another key figure in the development of forensic archaeology in Canada is Jerry Melbye. Both Skinner and Melbye were biological anthropologists but they had education, training and experience in archaeology and were active advocates of its use for forensic work. Unlike Skinner, however, Melbye made his mission to preach to the ‘home crowd’. Melbye began working with the Chief Coroner in Ontario in 1990, and he helped developed the forensic science programme at the University of Toronto at Mississauga, which continues today with a specialisation in anthropology (Katzmarzyk 2001). Melbye has several publications that advocate archaeological recovery of remains in a medico-legal setting (e.g. Melbye and Jimenez 1993, 1997; Melbye et al. 1999). Importantly, he has also given dozens of talks to coroner services and at professional meetings in Canada and the United States. That both Skinner and Melbye became Diplomates of the American Board of Forensic Anthropology – the highest level of professional achievement in the field – reinforced their expertise and authority. This along with their advocacy of forensic archaeology worked to ensure that archaeological practice was integrated with forensic anthropological work within their spheres of influence in Canada and abroad.
PR
Canada’s most populous province, only 1.1% of deaths investigated are homicides and of these, almost 50% occur in residences (Statistics Canada 2012, 26, 27).
D
224
0002220484.indd 224
Important cases and precedents Stratton and Beattie (1999) discuss the archaeological approach used to recover the remains of 10 people who died during a 1986 train collision, which caused a very destructive chemical fire. Having occurred before the regular use of DNA analysis for identification purposes, the recorded provenance of cremated remains became a critical element in reconstructing events and identifying some of the victims (Mayne Correia and Beattie 2002; Stratton and Beattie 1999). The use of archaeological techniques in Alberta could have served as a model for a recent investigation of a similar train derailment and devastating oil-fuelled fire in Lac Mégantic, Québec, which resulted in almost 50 deaths. Unfortunately, this seems not to have been the case, highlighting the regional administration and poor national coordination of these types of efforts, despite the terrible implications for successful identification of victims. Melbye and Jimenez (1997) discuss a case where anthropologists were asked to return to a body disposal
10/21/2014 2:35:22 PM
Canadian forensic archaeology
FS
asked me why one might need an archaeologist to assist with a medico-legal investigation. This pathologist had been working with a very well-known forensic anthropologist, but failed to appreciate how archaeological techniques and knowledge were useful (presumably either because the anthropologist with whom she worked did not use any or, if they had, because the pathologist presumed that such skills were part of the regular skill set of the forensic anthropologist).
O
Current state of forensic archaeology in Canada
PR
O
Given the mixed administration of death investigation across the country alongside little demand for routine forensic archaeological expertise, a lack of development and use of archaeologists for medico-legal investigation should not be surprising. Of course, archaeologists may be involved in search, recovery, scene documentation and interpretation for other manners of death: suicides, accidents or deaths from undetermined causes, but the number of these that warrant investigation are also relatively low and presumably the pressure to employ specialised expertise in these investigations (when there is good evidence prior to remains discovery/recovery of manner of death such as a suicide note left by a missing person) is less than for homicides. Nevertheless, local and regional coroners or medical examiners in some jurisdictions routinely rely on archaeologists or anthropologists to help determine if remains are of medico-legal interest (i.e. they are not archaeological) and to conduct search and recovery at death scenes, which include sites of fire, suicides, surface-scattered remains, those washed ashore or discovered underwater and cemetery exhumations of cold cases that have been nominated for re-examination. Although the situation varies by provincial/territorial jurisdiction, generally the coroner or medical examiner takes jurisdiction of found remains. Assessment of whether or not remains are historic or archaeological can be a vague process and may include proximity to known archaeological sites, physical traits that indicate aboriginal identity such as cranial deformation or material culture associated with the remains. This process is sometimes done in consultation between members of heritage preservation agencies and medico-legal investigators (Al Mackie, personal communication, 2013). In 2008, an ad hoc committee of the Canadian Association for Physical Anthropology (CAPA, or ACAP in French) produced a document advising police and death investigators on the minimum qualifications of those used for forensic anthropological analysis in Canada (Hoppa et al. 2008, 1). The authors stated that:
C
O R
R
EC
TE
D
site years after the coroner and police had examined and removed remains from it. At the behest of the police, subsequent investigation using archaeological techniques recovered further human remains and material evidence that resulted, finally, in a determination of cause and manner (homicide) of death. Around the same time that Melbye was demonstrating the utility of archaeology at crime scenes, a group of officers from the York Regional Police, part of the Forensic Identification Unit, was organised and trained to conduct search and recovery using archaeological techniques. This team continues to exist but is the only one of its kind in Canada (Olsen, personal communication, 2013). In 2002, with the discovery of material evidence from a missing woman at a pig farm in British Columbia, a massive investigation was staged that would uncover evidence of serial killings by Robert Pickton. Although an incredible amount of soil was excavated during the investigation, and many students of archaeology and anthropology were employed throughout the fieldwork that was directed by two accomplished forensic anthropologists, it is unclear how ‘archaeological’ were the techniques employed. A publication ban was instituted throughout the investigation and subsequent trial and to date no detailed account of the procedures used has been published. As such, it is difficult to assess the contribution of the case to the development of forensic archaeology in Canada, but the scale and involvement of a relatively large number of professional and developing anthropologists make it an important precedent of sorts. A final mention should be made of the innovative work of Margaret Kalacska at McGill University in Montréal who, with Lynne Bell and others, has undertaken research on burial prospection using multispectral analysis (Kalacska and Bell 2006; Kalacska et al. 2009). It remains to be seen if this line of inquiry will prove its worth but forensic archaeological research in Canada is virtually nil and this work warrants recognition. In 1999, Michael Spence, an anthropologist and archaeologist at the University of Western Ontario, reflecting on a forensic case involving the recovery of a young girl’s remains said:
225
U
N
it is important to have both archaeological and physical anthropological expertise represented in the field and as early as possible in the course of the investigation… These skills may be embodied in one individual; many forensic anthropologists are basically physical anthropologists who have accumulated a good deal of archaeological field experience in the course of their research on prehistoric or early historic societies (Spence 1999, 180).
Despite such calls as well as great and early efforts by Skinner and Melbye, the use of archaeology and archaeologists for medico-legal investigation has not been formally and routinely accepted. In 2006 I met a Canadian pathologist from one of Canada’s largest cities and she
0002220484.indd 225
forensic anthropologists today should be able to oversee searches for evidence, human remains, and graves and be
10/21/2014 2:35:23 PM
Americas
N
C
O R
R
EC
FS
O
O
TE
In response to the continuing but sporadic use of archaeological and anthropological expertise in Canada, alongside other concerns about professional forensic practice in the United States (e.g. the National Academy of Sciences 2009 report on forensic sciences), Congram and Mundorff (2009) called for the professional organisation of forensic archaeology and anthropology at an annual meeting of CAPA. This call was met with stoic silence and soon thereafter both authors were hired to work in the United States: the latter at the University of Tennessee (famous for its forensic anthropological research) and the former as a postdoctoral research fellow with the US Department of Defense’s Joint POW/ MIA Accounting Command’s Central Identification Labo ratory (JPAC-CIL; Pietruszka, Chapter 51, this volume).1 In 2013 a report was released on forensic sciences in Canada. The report chapter on forensic anthropology accentuated the lack of professional organisation, standardisation and accreditation in the discipline (Gruspier and Rogers 2013). Nevertheless, local and regional expertise is generally available. Those called upon, as will be seen from the survey data later, are almost always archaeologists or anthropologists who are based at universities (e.g. Simon Fraser University, the University of Northern British Columbia, the University of Western Ontario, the University of Toronto Mississauga, or St. Mary’s). It is not uncommon for qualified graduate students to assist. The federal police agency, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (Gendarmerie Royale du Canada in French), also has a crime scene examiner, Dr Diane Cockle, who recently completed her PhD in archaeology at Simon Fraser University with a thesis on post-mortem intervals based on decomposition in Canada.
Scotia, under the direction of Tanya Peckmann. A few universities offer undergraduate degrees with a forensic anthropology focus (e.g. University of Toronto Mississauga, St Mary’s, Memorial and Lakehead Universities) and many offer at least one course on forensic anthropology, some of which include teaching on archaeological recovery scene work. On two occasions, in 2008 and 2009, Simon Fraser University offered an undergraduate course specifically on forensic archaeology. There are many excellent graduate programmes in archaeology and anthropology, some of which provide students with an opportunity to get involved in mentored forensic casework and specialised course work on the application of archaeological and anthropological methods to medico-legal investigation as well as forensic-oriented research. Given the light caseload in Canada, the educational opportunities and course offerings seem appropriate. It is irresponsible for many students to be trained up in a discipline for which there is little work. This said, Dirkmaat and colleagues in the United States have exemplified the utility of experimentation and training for mass fatality response (e.g. Cabo and Dirkmaat, Chapter 31, this volume; Chapman et al. 2012; Dirkmaat 2012). Canadian practitioners and researchers have done nothing comparable. Recently foiled terrorist plots in Canada, the Lac Mégantic train disaster and the past deployment of Canadian experts abroad for UN missions or disaster response should remind us of the value of this type of preparedness. Also of educational note is the website Investigating Forensics, which was created with a grant from Virtual Museums Canada to Barbara Winter, the curator of the Simon Fraser University Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology. The site guides the visitor through a forensic case, starting with a scene search and grave excavation. The website includes text, video and still photographs that outline different forensic roles, including that of the forensic archaeologist (Investigating Forensics, online).
PR
able to determine whether the found remains are forensically significant and utilize proper crime scene protocols to document relevant information and evidence… evidence relevant to forensic anthropological investigations consist not only of physical human remains but also contextual evidence such as grave features, natural processes and site formation and site transformation processes, for which other specialists may contribute their expertise (e.g., archaeologists, entomologists, geologists, botanists, etc.).
D
226
U
Training opportunities In stark contrast to the United Kingdom where forensic graduate degree programmes abound, there is only one graduate-level programme in forensic anthropology (an MSc) in Canada, and it incorporates archaeological recovery. This is at St Mary’s University in Halifax, Nova
Survey of Canadian ‘forensic archaeologists’ A multiple-choice, online survey was sent to 32 people who have experience with forensic archaeological fieldwork in Canada. The list of potential recipients was discussed with two colleagues who have relevant experience and who have been teaching forensic anthropology at the post-secondary level for many years. Some potential recipients of the survey were excluded: (i) those who worked only on the Pickton
Congram recently (August 2013) moved back to Canada where he is continuing his research for JPAC-CIL as well as doing casework with the Forensic Science Centre in Toronto.
1
0002220484.indd 226
10/21/2014 2:35:23 PM
Canadian forensic archaeology
PR
O
O
FS
interpretations, and 60% of them indicated that the methods or interpretations were challenged during a trial or preliminary hearing. Nevertheless, almost half of the respondents (44%) indicated that they believed forensic fieldwork was not being conducted to a sufficient standard in Canada, which is worrying. This suggests that challenges at preliminary hearings or during trial might not be effectively identifying shortcomings in the standard of work. When these responses were tested against the years of experience of practitioners using a chi-squared test, there was no statistically significant correlation, indicating that it is not only those of a certain cohort who feel one way or another about the quality of work being performed. Melbye and Jimenez (1997, 67) emphasised that investigations often result in the recovery of artefacts such as bullets, clothing and personal effects, the examination of which they deemed to be within the experience of the forensic anthropologist. The experience of this author and the survey results show that the examination of such artefacts by anthropologists/archaeologists who do recovery work in Canada does occur often. Nevertheless, such analysis is seldom a topic of discussion in the forensic literature (for recent exceptions, see Anderson 2008; Birkby et al. 2008; Skinner et al. 2009).
U
N
C
O R
R
EC
TE
D
case, because the investigation appeared to employ little that could be considered archaeological and because many of those who worked there have not worked on other, more typical cases in Canada; and (ii) professionals from the United States who have consulted in Canada on only one or two cases, as they may skew results by having practised their own (though probably very similar) form of forensic archaeology. One Canadian recipient who has remarkably extensive experience in other countries did not complete the survey because they reported having no forensic fieldwork experience in Canada. There are some potentially relevant recipients that may have been overlooked, but in consulting with others and due to the small community of practitioners, the results should represent the discipline very well. The response rate was 90%, with 28 of 31 eligible recipients completing most or all of the survey. In general, respondents have a lot of forensic experience: almost 80% have worked on forensic cases for at least 11 years; close to half (43%) have worked on over 20 cases in the field; 50% have worked on at least 6–10 burials and only 2 of the respondents have never excavated a burial as part of forensic fieldwork. When burials are successfully found, it is usually because there are some remains on the ground surface (71.4%) and/or a witness has identified the location (75%). This leads one to wonder how many unmarked graves exist undiscovered for lack of witnesses and because they remain undisturbed/completely buried. At the same time, the abundance of open and unpopulated areas in Canada allows for easy disposal of remains (in a homicide case, for example) without a high probability of recent discovery, thus removing the killer from the victim (in time–space, association). It may be that victims are seldom buried. Although over a quarter (28.5%) of respondents reported having used (or worked with others who used) geophysics to search for burials, only two (7%) report it having been successful. Unfortunately the survey was not specific enough to establish how many times geophysics was used and failed to locate a burial, which was found by other methods (akin to a Type I error) so the reliability of geophysical prospection for forensic work in Canada is not known. Despite almost half of the practitioners (43%) selfidentifying primarily as biological anthropologists (even with the option of identifying as both a biological anthropologist and an archaeologist), nearly all respondents routinely report recording basic soil characteristics such as type, colour and stratigraphic relationships, and most report that either they or another on the scene regularly create a scale map. Three-quarters of those who completed the survey are based at universities. Half of the respondents have given testimony about the methods they used for fieldwork or the subsequent
227
0002220484.indd 227
Conclusions Despite low murder and disappearance rates in Canada and little demand for forensic archaeology, there are many historic cases of those who can be considered ‘missing’ for whom forensic archaeological expertise could be useful. One group of missing are those who died in past aircraft crashes and whose remains were never recovered from the crash site. During and following the Second World War there were a number of military and commercial aircraft crashes in the mountain ranges of British Columbia and Alberta, which resulted in dozens of deaths (e.g. Eldridge et al. 1994). Following the discovery of a commercial aircraft crash site, a newspaper reported that ‘bodies … lie deep in a snow pocket … safe from desecration and buried so completely that man [sic] cannot hope to improve on nature’s job … permanently buried in ice and snow which will last as long as the mountains remain’ (Vancouver Sun, 1943). Both historically and recently, avocational hikers have discovered these sites, including that to which the earlier quote relates, and observed skeletonised remains lying across the landscape (Figure 27.1). It is remarkable to consider that this is acceptable, particularly when one thinks that many of those who died – despite some being war time losses – went ‘missing’ in a place where there were few significant impediments (beyond prohibitive seasonal weather) to the recovery of the remains.
10/21/2014 2:35:23 PM
228
Americas poem that was written about Jerry Melbye by his first anthropology PhD student gives us a pretty good idea: …But perhaps what I got from my turn at the wheel Was a burr that has pushed me along. A phrase that he said, more than once, that I thought Was simply and utterly wrong.
FS
The osteologist, Melbye opined, has the job of Handmaiden to the archaeologist. Surely not! Thought my brain. Our work must stand fast, without leaning on any apologist.
So handmaiden? Maybe. Colleague, for sure. I’m pleased that I followed the call. My thanks go to Jerry for urging me on And I think that I speak for us all. Susan Pfeiffer 2001
U
N
C
O R
R
EC
TE
The second group of those whose remains are ‘missing’ are First Nations (aboriginal) children who were removed from their native homes and communities to be raised at residential schools, where recent research shows that at least 4100 of them died (Alex Maass, personal communication, 2013; Milloy 1999; The Canadian Press 2013). These schools were instituted by the Canadian government and administered by churches from the 1840s to 1996. The dead often lie in unmarked burials at the site of the school, and not in the communities from which the children were removed (Alex Maass, personal communication 2013). Forensic archaeologists could certainly assist with the location and exhumation of these remains although this must be done in association with and at the behest of the victim families and communities if they deem it appropriate. The existence of these burials and the remains of aircraft crash victims might be symptomatic of a general apathy about treatment of the dead in Canada, but they are more likely a result of disingenuous or lack of factual reporting by the authorities in charge at the time of the deaths. With the passage of time, families of the dead may become resigned to the seeming impossibility of recovery and repatriation of remains for culturally appropriate rites. Overall forensic archaeology in Canada exists, albeit in various forms and with no particular standard operating procedures. There is certainly room for research and development as well as unexplored opportunity for those who are properly trained. Current practitioners demonstrate and advocate archaeological approaches, although many express dissatisfaction with the standard to which the work is being done. In terms of who practices forensic archaeology, a segment from a
I go back to those words, and I have to admit That alone none of us holds a candle For finding and shaping the tale of our past Is more than any one group can handle.
PR
victims of a commercial aircraft crash in western Canada. This photo was recently taken by an avocational hiker (Photo: R. Marshall).
D
Figure 27.1 Semi-articulated skeletonised remains from
O
O
Like my colleagues, I’ve worked to define our perspective To say, “this is OUR kind of question.” But now, as I survey the work that I do And I ponder what brings satisfaction,
0002220484.indd 228
References Anderson, B. E. 2008. Identifying the dead: methods utilized by the Pima County (Arizona) Office of the Medical Examiner for undocumented border crossers: 2001–2006. Journal of Forensic Sciences 53(1), 8–15. Anderson, J. E. 1962. The Human Skeleton: A Manual for Archaeologists. Ottawa, National Museum of Canada. Birkby, W. H., Fenton, T. W. and Anderson, B. E. 2008. Identifying southwest Hispanics using nonmetric traits and the cultural profile. Journal of Forensic Sciences 53(1), 29–33. Blau, S. and Skinner, M. 2005. The use of forensic archaeology in the investigation of human rights abuse: Unearthing the past in East Timor. The International Journal of Human Rights 9(4), 449–463. CBC. 2009. BC’s Infamous ‘Highway of Tears’. Available at: http:// www.cbc.ca/archives/categories/society/crime-justice/coldcases-unsolved-crimes-in-canada/bcs-infamous-highway-oftears.html (last accessed 14 April 2013). Chapman, E. N., Kenyhercz, M. and Cabo, L. L. 2012. Enhancing Scene Protocols to Improve Victim Identification and Field Detection of Human Remains in Mass Fatality Scenes. National Institute of Justice, Award number #2008-DN-BX-K133. Available at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/238744.pdf (last accessed 13 May 2013). Congram, D. and Mundorff, A. 2009. A call for accreditation in forensic archaeology and anthropology in Canada. Canadian Association for Physical Anthropology Annual Meeting, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver. Dirkmaat, D. C. 2012. Forensic anthropology at the mass fatality incident (commercial airliner) crash scene. In
10/21/2014 2:35:26 PM
Canadian forensic archaeology
PR
O
O
FS
Skelton, C. 2010 Pickton won’t face remaining 20 murder charges, The Vancouver Sun [online]. Available at: http:// www.vancouversun.com/news/Crown+drops+remaining+m urder+charges+against+Pickton/3360046/story.html (last accessed 8 September 2014). Skinner, M. 1987. Planning the archaeological recovery of evidence from recent mass graves. Forensic Science International 34, 267–287. Skinner, M. 2007. Hapless in Afghanistan: forensic archaeology in a political maelstrom. In R. Ferllini (ed.), Forensic Archaeology and Human Rights Violations, 233–265. Springfield, Charles C. Thomas. Skinner, M. F. and Bowie, K. 2009. Forensic anthropology: Canadian content and contributions. In: S. Blau and D. Ubelaker (eds.), Handbook of Forensic Anthropology and Archaeology, 87–103. Walnut Creek, Left Coast Press. Skinner, M. and Jessee, E. 2005. A typology of mass grave and mass grave-related sites. Forensic Science International 152, 55–59. Skinner, M. F. and Lazenby, R. 1984. Found! Human Remains: A Field Manual for the Recovery of the Recent Human Skeleton. Burnaby, SFU Archaeology Press. Skinner, M. F. and Sterenberg, J. 2005. Turf wars: authority and responsibility for the investigation of mass graves. Forensic Science International 151, 221–232. Skinner, M. F., Alempijevic, D. and Djuric-Srejic, M. 2003. Guidelines for international forensic bioarchaeology monitors of mass grave exhumations. Forensic Science International 134, 81–92. Skinner, M., Fernández, A. and Congram, D. 2009. Material culture analysis in forensic cases: a call for formal recognition by forensic anthropologists. Proceedings American Academy of Forensic Sciences 15, 336–337. Skinner, M. F., York, H. P. and Connor, M. A. 2002. Postburial disturbance of graves in Bosnia-Herzegovina. In W. D. Haglund and M. H. Sorg (eds.), Advances in Forensic Taphonomy, 293–308. Boca Raton, CRC Press. Spence, M. 1999. An anthropological investigation of a rural homicide scene. In S. I. Fairgrieve (ed.), Forensic Osteological Analysis, 173–182. Springfield, Charles C. Thomas. Statistics Canada. 2012. Canadian Coroner and Medical Examiner Database: Annual Report 2006–2008. Available at: http://www. statcan.gc.ca/pub/82-214-x/2012001/int-eng.htm (last accessed 19 May 2013). Stratton, S. U. and Beattie, O. B. 1999. Mass disasters: comments and discussion regarding the Hinton train collision of 1986. In S. I. Fairgrieve (ed.), Forensic Osteological Analysis, 267–286. Springfield, Charles C. Thomas. The Canadian Press. 2013. At Least 3,000 Died in Residential Schools, Research Shows. Available at: http://www.cbc.ca/ news/canada/story/2013/02/18/residential-schools-studentdeaths.html (last accessed 9 June 2013). Vancouver Sun. 1943. 21 August 1943, page 1. Wilson, D. 2004. The lonely road of Matty Wilson, United Church Observer Magazine. Available at: http://www.ucobserver.org/ justice/2004/11/the_lonely_road_of_matty_wilson/ (last accessed 30 May 2013).
U
N
C
O R
R
EC
TE
D
D. C. Dirkmaat (ed.), A Companion to Forensic Anthropology, 136–156. Madlen, Wiley-Blackwell. Eldridge, M., Owens-Baird, D. and Mackie, A. 1994. Mt. Slesse Air Crash Site Archaeological Investigation. Report prepared for Chilliwack Forest District. Sidney, Millennia Research. Gruspier, K. and Rogers, T. 2013. Forensic anthropology. In M. S. Pollanen, M. J. Bowes, S. L. Van Laerhoven and J. Wallace (eds.), Forensic Science in Canada; A Report of Multidisciplinary Discussion, 21–30. Centre for Forensic Science & Medicine, University of Toronto. Hoppa, R. D., Rogers, T., Lazenby, R. et al. 2008. The Canadian Association of Physical Anthropology/L’Association Canadienne D’Anthropologie Physique. President’s Ad-Hoc Committee Report on Minimum Levels of Qualifications for Forensic Anthropology in Canada (18 June 2008). Kalacska, M. E. and Bell, L. S. 2006. Remote sensing as a tool for the detection of clandestine mass graves. Canadian Society of Forensic Science Journal 39, 1–13. Kalacska, M. E., Bell, L. S., Sanchez-Azofeifa, G. A. and Caelli, T. 2009. The application of remote sensing for detecting mass graves: an experimental animal case study from Costa Rica. Journal of Forensic Sciences 54(1), 159–166. Katzmarzyk, C. 2001. The academic career of Dr. Jerry Melbye. In L. Sawchuk and S. Pfeiffer (eds.), Out of the Past: The History of Human Osteology at the University of Toronto. University of Toronto Scarborough, CITD Press. Available at: https://tspace. library.utoronto.ca/citd/Osteology/Katzmarzyk.html (last accessed 30 March 2014). Mayne Correia, P. and Beattie, O. 2002. A critical look at methods for recovering, evaluating, and interpreting cremated human remains. In W. D. Haglund and M. H. Sorg (eds.), Advances in Forensic Taphonomy, 435–450. Boca Raton, CRC Press. Meiklejohn, C. 2012. From Lawrence, Kansas, to Victoria in 40 years. Some thoughts on the history of physical anthropology in Canada, CAPA, and a aareer in bioarchaeology. Oral Presentation Given at the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Association for Physical Anthropology, Victoria, Canada. Melbye, J. and Jimenez, S. 1993. The integration of the metal detector with standard archaeological recovery. Proceedings of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, Boston, MA. Melbye J, and Jimenez, S. 1997. Chain of custody from the field to the courtroom. In W. D. Haglund and M. H. Sorg (eds.), ForensicTaphonomy: The Post-Mortem Fate of Human Remains, 65–75. Boca Raton, CRC Press. Melbye, J., Chiasson, D., Wood, R. and Blenkinsop, B. 1999. Death on the Danforth. In S. I. Fairgrieve (ed.), Forensic Osteological Analysis: a Book of Case Studies, 89–106. Springfield, Charles C. Thomas. Milloy, J. S. 1999. A National Crime; The Canadian Government and the Residential School System, 1879 to 1986. Winnipeg, The University of Manitoba Press. Morse, D., Crusoe, D. and Smith, H. G. 1976. Forensic archaeology. Journal of Forensic Science 21(2), 323–332. Morse, D., Duncan, J. and Stoudamire, J. 1983. Handbook of Forensic Archaeology and Anthropology. Tallahassee, Rose Printing Company. National Academy of Sciences. 2009. Strengthening Forensic Sciences in the United States: A Path Forward. National Research Councils. Washington DC, National Academies Press. Pfeiffer, S. 2001. Dr. Melbye’s revenge. In L. Sawchuk and S. Pfeiffer (eds.), Out of the Past: The History of Human Osteology at the University of Toronto. University of Toronto Scarborough, CITD Press.
229
0002220484.indd 229
Website Investigating Forensics. Virtual Museum of Canada and Simon Fraser University Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology. Available at: http://www.sfu.museum/forensics. Accessed 15 August 2013.
10/21/2014 2:35:26 PM
FS O O PR D TE EC R O R C N U 0002220484.indd 230
10/21/2014 2:35:26 PM
