Commentary on: Humphreys MK, Panacek E, Green W, Albers E. Comparison of protocols for measuring and calculating postmortem submersion intervals for human analogs in fresh water. J Forensic Sci 2013;58(2):513-7

摘要

In their paper, recently published in the Journal of Forensic Sciences (1), the authors carried out a linear decomposition study in still water using piglet carcasses. They then compared two measures of the state of decomposition: (i) a scale developed by Heaton et al. (2) to produce a score from visual observation and (ii) wet weight. They conclude that the former method is superior and offer suggestions for the differences in predictive formulae from their own and the Heaton et al. study.Studies that test the extent to which previously derived models are relevant are important to the advance of science and should be encouraged. However, there are shortcomings in this article, of which readers of this journal should be aware if the paper is to be more useful. In particular, the explanation for the difference between their own derived formula and that of Heaton et al. is summarized, "..the TAD to ADD ratio is dependent upon location, environmental conditions, and average size of the carrion being tested." (TAD is the total aquatic decomposition score, a 23-point scale that produces a numerical value to represent stage of decomposition. ADD is accumulated degree days, the product of time and temperature that interactively affects the decomposition rate [3]). This statement is both vague and unsubstantiated by the research presented, as detailed below.