Special 

JUNE 05 

Mass Fatality Incidents: 

A Guide for Human Forensic Identification 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs 

National Institute of Justice 

REPORT 

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij 
U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs 

810 Seventh Street N.W. 

Washington, DC 20531 

Alberto R. Gonzales 

Attorney General 

Tracy A. Henke 

Acting Assistant Attorney General 

Sarah V. Hart 

Director, National Institute of Justice 

This and other publications and products of the National Institute 

of Justice can be found at: 

National Institute of Justice 

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij 

Office of Justice Programs 

Partnerships for Safer Communities 

www.ojp.usdoj.gov 
JUNE 05 

Mass Fatality Incidents: A Guide for 

Human Forensic Identification 

Technical Working Group for Mass Fatality Forensic Identification 

NCJ 199758 
Sarah V. Hart 

Director 

Findings and conclusions of the research reported here are those of the authors and do not 

reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

The National Institute of Justice is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also 

includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the Office of Juvenile 

Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime. 
Message From the Director


Every action taken by public safety personnel at a death scene can have a profound 

impact on victim identification and any 

subsequent criminal investigation. Coordinating the work of the many agencies that 

must respond to mass fatality incidents 

presents a particularly complex set of 

demands. Even large States and municipalities can find themselves overburdened 

with many operational requirements in 

responding to a major transportation accident or terrorist incident. Whether for the 

purpose of preserving evidence for a criminal investigation or effectively managing the 

identification of victims, a well-designed 

plan could be an invaluable response tool. 

Recent events and the emergent threat of 

continued terrorist activity emphasize the 

need for public-sector agencies to plan for 

a coordinated response to a mass fatality 

event. Agencies small and large, urban and 

rural, need to be prepared for an event 

that will exceed their operational capacity. 

In an effort to support excellence across 

local and State public safety agencies, the 

National Institute of Justice, the research, 

development, and evaluation arm of the 

U.S. Department of Justice, initiated a 

national effort through the National Center 

for Forensic Science to develop a consensus document that would offer guidance 

for the development of coordinated plans 

for responding to an incident involving 

mass fatalities. I commend the work of 

the 49 experienced public officials and 

other professionals from across the United 

States and Canada who came together 

and formed the Technical Working Group 

that developed this guide. I applaud their 

commitment and determination in creating 

this consensus document. 

This guide is designed to assist all jurisdictions in creating new mass fatality plans 

or reviewing existing plans. I encourage 

every jurisdiction to give careful consideration to the recommendations in the guide. 

Regardless of the number of people killed, 

victims and their loved ones deserve our 

best efforts to provide accurate identification of the victims and effective investigation of the crime. I believe this guide will 

help us attain that goal. 

Sarah V. Hart 

Director, National Institute of Justice 

iii 
Preface 

Most government agencies concerned 

with public safety have disaster plans. 

Although some are linked to other agencies’ plans, others are not. In the event of 

mass fatalities, the local medical examiner 

or coroner should already have in place a 

plan to identify the victims properly. The 

purpose of this guide is to help the medical examiner or coroner prepare that portion of a disaster plan concerned with 

victim identification. 

The statutory duty of the medical examiner or coroner does not change as the number of victims increases. Whether there 

are one, a hundred, or thousands of victims, each should be accorded the same 

consideration under the laws governing 

the investigation of and response to sudden or violent death. 

Correct victim identification is essential to 

satisfy humanitarian considerations, meet 

civil and criminal investigative needs, and 

identify victim perpetrators. Equally important with identification procedures is the 

need to document body location and 

wound patterns that may be essential in 

reconstructing the event and determining 

its cause. Today, forensic science (e.g., 

DNA, fingerprints, forensic anthropology, 

odontology, radiology) plays a major role in 

victim identification. If local and State governments lack the resources to cope with 

a large number of fatalities, they should 

consider outside help in the forensic investigations that may lead to the identification 

of these victims. The specialists brought 

in to assist in the investigation should have 

experience, education, and training in the 

forensic process and should adhere to the 

highest scientific and professional standards. 

It is essential to integrate the medical 

examiner/coroner functions into the established emergency response system. This 

system is concerned with limiting the 

scope of the disaster and providing critical 

functions such as fire suppression, rescue 

of the injured, establishment of an incident command structure, and security. 

The first section of this guide, “Section 1: 

Initial Response Considerations,” summarizes the initial process. The second section, “Section 2: Arriving at the Scene,” 

discusses the integration of the medical 

examiner/coroner into the process. From 

the third section, “Section 3: Processing 

the Scene,” onward, the focus is on the 

identification of the deceased. 

This guide does not specifically address 

the search and rescue efforts for the living 

that take precedence over the recovery 

of the remains, collection of evidence, 

documentation of the scene, and other 

operational procedures. However, first 

responders and others can use this guide 

to understand the death investigation process. This guide can assist them in developing operational tactics for routine as 

well as mass fatality incidents. 

The procedures presented in this guide 

can help medical examiners and coroners 

fulfill their legal duties even when the 

number of victims exceeds their agency’s 

daily operating capacity. 

v 
Technical Working Group for Mass Fatality


Forensic Identification 

In April 2000, the National Institute of 

Justice (NIJ), the National Center for 

Forensic Science (NCFS), and the University of Central Florida identified the need 

for a guide to prepare local and State medical examiners and coroners for a mass 

fatality incident. NIJ established the 

Technical Working Group for Mass Fatality 

Forensic Identification (TWGMFFI) to identify, define, and establish the basic criteria 

to assist medical examiners’ and coroners’ 

offices and local and State agencies in 

managing mass fatality incidents. 

The planning panel met in January and 

February 2001 at NCFS in Orlando, Florida, 

to define the scope, intent, and objectives 

of the guide and to identify TWG members 

and member organizations. NCFS facilitated the first meeting of the full TWGMFFI 

in June 2001 in Orlando, Florida. During 

the first day, the group separated into 

subcommittees to draft the following 

sections: “Section 1: Initial Response 

Considerations”; “Section 2: Arriving at 

the Scene”; “Section 3: Processing the 

Scene”; “Section 5: Disposition of Human 

Remains, Personal Effects, and Records”; 

and “Section 6: Other Issues.” On the 

second day, the group separated into subcommittees according to their forensic 

specialties to draft “Section 4: Identification of Human Remains.” 

The planning panel was scheduled to meet 

in late September 2001 to review the draft 

document. The events of September 11, 

2001, however, required NCFS to reschedule the meeting. The planning panel met in 

November 2001 in Orlando to review and 

edit the draft document. NCFS facilitated 

conference calls with each subcommittee 

during January through March 2002 to 

review and revise each section. NCFS 

hosted another planning panel meeting in 

Orlando in March 2002 to review and further revise the document. In May 2002, 

NCFS posted the draft document on its 

Web site and solicited comments from 

335 agencies, departments, and organizations in the forensic science and law enforcement communities for content and 

editorial review. The full TWG met for the 

final time in July 2002 in Orlando to review 

comments, revise the document, and 

make final changes. 

Planning Panel 

Douglas M. Arendt


Captain, U.S. Navy (Retired)


Chief Forensic Odontologist and Staff 


Pathologist (Retired)


Armed Forces Institute of Pathology


Washington, D.C.


Jack Ballantyne, Ph.D.


Associate Director, Biological Evidence


National Center for Forensic Science


University of Central Florida


Orlando, Florida


Jamie Bush, CLPE


Forensic Scientist


Latent Print Section


Mississippi Crime Laboratory


Meridian, Mississippi 


Frank A. Ciaccio, M.P.A.


Manager, Forensic Science


National Transportation Safety Board 


Washington, D.C.


Joseph H. Davis, M.D.


Director (Retired)


Miami-Dade County Medical Examiner’s


Department


Miami, Florida


vii 
Joseph A. DiZinno, D.D.S. 

Deputy Assistant Director 

Laboratory Division 

Federal Bureau of Investigation 

Washington, D.C. 

Anthony B. Falsetti, Ph.D. 

Director 

C.A. Pound Human Identification Lab 

University of Florida 

Gainesville, Florida 

Mitchell M. Holland, Ph.D.


Vice President and Laboratory Director


The Bode Technology Group, Inc.


Springfield, Virginia


Thomas Holland, Ph.D.


Scientific Director


U.S. Army Central Identification 

Laboratory, Hawaii [now Joint POW/MIA 

Accounting Command] 

Hickam AFB, Hawaii 

Norman Kassoff


Director of Operations (Retired)


Miami-Dade County Medical Examiner’s


Department 

Miami, Florida 

William Morlang, D.D.S.


Colonel, U.S. Air Force (Retired) 


Associate Professor


Department of Oral and Maxillofacial 


Pathology 

Tufts University 

Boston, Massachusetts 

Tom Shepardson (Deceased) 

DMORT National Commander 

Office of Emergency Preparedness 

National Disaster Medical System 

U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services [now U.S. Department of 

Homeland Security] 

Syracuse, New York 

Paul Sledzik, M.S.


DMORT III Commander


National Museum of Health and Medicine


Armed Forces Institute of Pathology 

Washington, D.C. 

Carrie M. Whitcomb, M.S.F.S. 

Director 

National Center for Forensic Science 

University of Central Florida 

Orlando, Florida 

TWGMFFI Members 

Joseph A. Bifano, M.D. 

Major, U.S. Air Force 

Chief, Diagnostic Imaging 

Dover AFB, Delaware 

C. Michael Bowers, D.D.S., J.D. 

Deputy Medical Examiner 

Ventura County Medical Examiner’s Office 

Ventura, California 

Joseph Brown 

Supervisory Fingerprint Specialist 

Federal Bureau of Investigation 

Washington, D.C. 

Brian Chrz, D.D.S. 

Consultant 

Office of the Chief Medical Examiner 

State of Oklahoma 

Perry, Oklahoma 

David Coffman 

Crime Laboratory Analyst Supervisor 

Florida Department of Law Enforcement 

Tallahassee, Florida 

Barry W. Duceman, Ph.D. 

Director of Biological Science 

Forensic Investigation Center 

New York State Police 

Albany, New York 

Scott Firestone, D.D.S. 

Forensic Odontologist 

Suffolk County Medical Examiner’s Office 

Hauppauge, New York 

John Fitzpatrick, M.D. 

Department of Radiology 

viii 
Cook County Hospital


Chicago, Illinois


Ron Fourney, Ph.D.


Research Scientist


Forensic Laboratory Services


National Police Services


Royal Canadian Mounted Police


Ottawa, Ontario


Canada


Diane France, Ph.D.


Director


Human Identification Laboratory


Colorado State University


Fort Collins, Colorado


Laura C. Fulginiti, Ph.D.


Forensic Anthropologist


Maricopa County Medical Examiner’s


Office 

Phoenix, Arizona 

Grant D. Graham, M.F.S. 

Senior Crime Scene Analyst 

Mississippi Crime Laboratory 

Biloxi, Mississippi 

Danny W. Greathouse 

Lockheed Martin 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Washington, D.C. 

Jack Hackett 

Lieutenant 

Senior Crime Scene Analyst 

New York City Police Department 

New York, New York 

Randy Hanzlick, M.D. 

Chief Medical Examiner 

Fulton County Medical Examiner’s Center 

Associate Professor of Forensic Pathology 

Emory University School of Medicine 

Atlanta, Georgia 

Rhea Haugseth, D.D.S. 

Marietta, Georgia 

Dale Heideman 

Deputy Director 

National Center for Forensic Science


University of Central Florida


Orlando, Florida


Roy Heim


Detective


Tulsa Police Department


Tulsa, Oklahoma


Edwin F. Huffine, Ph.D.


Director of Forensic Sciences Program


International Commission on Missing 


Persons 

Sarajevo, Bosnia-Herzegovina 

Louis Hupp 

Supervisory Fingerprint Specialist 

Federal Bureau of Investigation 

Washington, D.C. 

Robert A. Jensen 

Vice President of Operations, Planning, 

and Training 

Kenyon International Emergency 

Services, Inc. 

Houston, Texas 

Fred B. Jordan, M.D.


Chief Medical Examiner


State of Oklahoma


Oklahoma City, Oklahoma


Martin S. LaBrusciano


Chief (Retired)


Casselberry Police Department


Law Enforcement Consultant


Buffalo, Wyoming


Joel E. Lichtenstein, M.D.


Professor and Director, Gastrointestinal 


Radiology 

Department of Radiology 

University of Washington School of 

Medicine 

Seattle, Washington 

Mark Malcolm 

Coroner 

Pulaski County Coroner’s Office 

Little Rock, Arkansas 

ix 
Gregory O’Reilly, M.A., J.D. 

Supervisor, Forensic Science Unit 

Office of the Cook County Public Defender 

Chicago, Illinois 

Dick Rogers 

Major 

Miami-Dade Police Department 

Miami, Florida 

Robert Sibert, M.A., M.S.F.S. 

Chief, Forensic Analysis Section 

Federal Bureau of Investigation 

Washington, D.C. 

Brion Smith, D.D.S. 

Chief Deputy Medical Examiner 

Department of Defense DNA Registry 

Armed Forces Institute of Pathology 

Rockville, Maryland 

Calvin W. Smith 

Forensic Specialist (Retired) 

Royal Canadian Mounted Police 

Sydney River, Nova Scotia 

Canada 

Ron W. Tarr, Ph.D. 

Director, Advanced Learning Technology 

Institute for Simulation and Training 

University of Central Florida 

Orlando, Florida 

James G. Tauber 

Director 

Volusia County Fire Services 

Deland, Florida 

Steve Tillmann 

Deputy 

Crime Scene Investigator 

Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department 

Los Angeles, California 

Charles V. Wetli, M.D. 

Chief Medical Examiner 

Suffolk County Medical Examiner’s Office 

Hauppauge, New York 

C. Colon Willoughby, Jr. 

Wake County District Attorney 

10th Prosecutorial District 

State of North Carolina 

Raleigh, North Carolina 

x 
Acknowledgments 

The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) 

thanks the members of the Technical 

Working Group for Mass Fatality Forensic 

Identification for their dedication to this 

project. NIJ also offers its gratitude to the 

agencies and organizations represented by 

the working group members. 

In addition, NIJ thanks Carrie M. 

Whitcomb, Director; Jack Ballantyne, 

Associate Director, Biological Evidence; 

and John Bardakjy, Research Coordinator; 

of the National Center for Forensic 

Science for facilitating this project. 

NIJ also thanks the law enforcement 

agencies, academic institutions, and 

commercial organizations worldwide that 

supplied contact information, reference 

materials, and editorial suggestions. 

On February 18, 2003, the forensic community lost one of its leaders, Tom 

Shepardson, National Commander, 

Disaster Mortuary Operational Response 

Team (DMORT). Tom was a man of conviction, dedicated to his country, and a true 

believer that deceased individuals should 

be treated with the utmost respect and 

dignity. Tom believed that “we owe it to 

their families” to positively identify individuals and return them to their loved ones 

as quickly as possible. In essence, Tom 

Shepardson stood for everything this 

guide represents. 

xi 
Contents 

Message From the Director . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

Technical Working Group for Mass Fatality Forensic Identification. . . . . . . . . vii

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi

Section 1: Initial Response Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Section 2: Arriving at the Scene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Section 3: Processing the Scene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Section 4: Identification of Human Remains. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13


Section 4.1: Identification of Human Remains—Medical Examiner/Coroner . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15


Section 4.2: Identification of Human Remains—Administration/Morgue Operations . . . . . . 19


Section 4.3: Identification of Human Remains—Forensic Anthropology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Section 4.4: Identification of Human Remains—DNA Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Section 4.5: Identification of Human Remains—Fingerprints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Section 4.6: Identification of Human Remains—Odontology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Section 4.7: Identification of Human Remains—Radiology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Section 4.8: Identification of Human Remains—Antemortem Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Section 5: Disposition of Human Remains, Personal 


Effects, and Records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Section 6: Other Issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Appendix A. Resources and Links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Appendix B. Disaster Mortuary Operational Response Team 


Activation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Appendix C. Facilities/Organizational Flow Chart. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

xiii 
Appendix D. Procedures for DNA Sample Collection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61


Appendix E. DNA Sample Family Reference Collection Forms . . . . . . . . . . . . 63


Appendix F. Dental Numbering System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67


Appendix G. Sample Remains Release Authorization Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69


List of Reviewers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71


xiv 
resources needed may change as the 

investigation yields additional facts and 

details. 

II. Know the Role of the Medical 

Examiner/Coroner 

Principle. The medical examiner/coroner 

is responsible for establishing the cause 

and manner of death for the purposes of 

identifying the dead and issuing death certificates. Local/State statutes define the 

Principle. A mass fatality incident can medical examiner/coroner’s responsibilities. 

happen anywhere and usually without 

advance warning. When such an incident Procedure. The medical examiner/coroner 

occurs, there are two phases to the is responsible for overseeing and coordiresponse— nating the provision and use of resources 

Incident 

Section 1: Initial Response Considerations 

Local agencies are advised to develop and 

implement an emergency management plan 

before a mass fatality incident. Federal assistance following a disaster may not be immediate 

and may not be forthcoming. 

I. Determine the Scope of the 

to recover and identify the dead. Initial 

A. Stabilizing the scene and rescuing the considerations include— 

injured. 

A. Preparing morgue/autopsy facilities. B. Recovering and identifying human 

remains and evidence. 	 B. Establishing security and credentialing 

systems. Procedure. It is important that responders 

en route to or arriving at the scene ask the C. Coordinating the transportation of 

following questions to comprehend the remains from the scene to the 

extent of the incident— morgue. 

A.	 What happened? D. Coordinating activities with the family 

assistance center (FAC), as appropriate. 

B. Where did it happen? About the Authors E. Establishing communications and data 

The Technical Working C. How many injuries/fatalities are management systems. 

Group for Mass Fatality involved? 

Forensic Identification is a F. Establishing fiscal and material 

multidisciplinary group of D. What are the known hazards? requirements. 

practitioners and subject 

matter experts from E.	 What agencies are (or could become) G. Identifying the deceased.

involved? across the United States, H. Issuing death certificates. Canada, and Eastern F. Where is the scene command post Europe. Each participant located? I. Establishing a system for disposition has experience with col- of the remains. lecting, processing, and G. How will the scene be secured? 

identifying human Summary. The medical examiner/coroner’s remains in the wake of a Summary. Answering these questions responsibilities include determining the mass fatality incident. quickly will enable responders to notify cause and manner of death, identifying

and mobilize all appropriate resources. the dead, and returning the remains to the 

Keep in mind that the type and amount of legal next of kin. 

1 
SPECIAL REPORT / JUNE 05 

III. Consider Additional 

Resources 

Principle. The magnitude of a mass fatality 

incident may exceed the incident command’s local capabilities and resources. 

If this happens, the incident command is 

expected to immediately begin contacting 

local, State, and Federal agencies for additional support (see appendix A for agency 

contact information). 

These agencies are expected to assist 

with recovery/identification operations and 

provide administrative support. Depending 

on the nature of the incident, agencies 

(e.g., the National Transportation Safety 

Board [NTSB] and the Federal Bureau of 

Investigation [FBI]) are expected to respond immediately to the scene of the 

incident. 

Procedure. The incident command should 

consider contacting the following local, 

State, and Federal resources if the scale 

of the incident exceeds available resources 

and capabilities— 

A.	 Resources for the collection and 

identification of remains: 

1.	 Local and State resources: 

a. Medical examiner/coroner 

personnel. 

b. Law enforcement and fire 

departments. 

c. Canine search units. 

2. Federal/national resources: 

a. U.S. Department of Homeland 

Security, National Disaster 

Medical System: 

1) Disaster Mortuary Operational 

Response Teams (DMORT). 

b. Federal Bureau of Investigation 

(FBI): 

1) Critical Incident Response 

Group (CIRG). 

2) Evidence Response Team 

(ERT). 

3) Laboratory Services. 

4) Disaster Squad. 

5) Hazardous Materials 

Response Unit. 

c. U.S. Department of Justice, 

Office of Justice Programs: 

1) Office for Victims of Crime, 

Victim Assistance Center. 

d. U.S. Department of Defense 

(DoD): 

1) Armed Forces Institute of 

Pathology (AFIP): 

a) Office of the Armed Forces 

Medical Examiner (OAFME). 

b) Armed Forces DNA Identification Laboratory (AFDIL). 

2) U.S. Army Central Identification Laboratory, Hawaii (CILHI) 

[now Joint POW/MIA 

Accounting Command]. 

B.	 Additional resources: 

1.	 Local and State resources (in addition to the medical examiner/ 

coroner): 

a. Crime laboratories. 

b. Emergency management offices. 

c. National Guard. 

d. State departments of 

transportation. 

e. Other. 

2. Federal/national resources: 

a. Federal Emergency Management 

Agency (FEMA): 

1) Urban Search and Rescue 

(US&R) Teams. 

b. National Transportation Safety 

Board (NTSB). 

c. Other. 

2 
MASS FATALITY INCIDENTS: A GUIDE FOR HUMAN FORENSIC IDENTIFICATION 

3. Private resources:	 e. Private disaster response 

a. Nonprofit organizations.	 companies. 

f.	 Private forensic laboratories. b. State funeral directors’


associations. g. Educational institutions. 


c. State dental associations and	 Summary. Utilizing various resources can 

identification teams. provide major assistance to local units of 

d. Transportation companies. government. 

3 
Section 2: Arriving at the Scene


I. Initial Response and Evaluation 

Principle. The initial response to a mass 

fatality incident establishes the incident 

management framework for the preservation of life and property and the thorough 

documentation and collection of all remains, personal effects, and evidence. The 

processing of evidence and human remains is secondary to emergency services 

and safety considerations. The recovery 

and collection process should be systematic and methodical to minimize the loss 

and contamination of evidence. First 

responders (i.e., the first public safety personnel to arrive at the scene, whether law 

enforcement officers, firefighters, or emergency medical services [EMS] personnel) 

should assess the scene quickly yet thoroughly to determine the course of action 

required. This assessment includes the 

scope of the incident, emergency services 

required, safety concerns, and evidentiary 

considerations. 

Procedure. On arriving at the scene, first 

responders (e.g., fire, police, emergency 

medical personnel) are expected to— 

A.	 Officially report to the incident command or highest ranking officer at the 

scene and produce appropriate credentials as required. 

B.	 Maintain a written record, if possible, 

identifying all personnel and the time 

of their arrival on the scene. 

C.	 Verify the type of incident (e.g., transportation, industrial, natural, or criminal) and request appropriate assistance. 

D.	 Evaluate the scope of the incident: 

1. Geographical extent (ensure the 

perimeter is large enough to 

encompass the entire scene). 

2. Number of injuries/fatalities. 

3. Identify eyewitnesses, if applicable. 

E.	 Identify scene hazards such as structural collapse, chemical and biological 

hazards, and explosive devices. 

F. Initiate appropriate EMS rescue 

procedures. 

G.	 Leave the remains of the deceased 

undisturbed. 

H.	 Establish an initial security perimeter 

to control entry to and exit from the 

scene. 

I.	 Establish an incident command post 

and initiate an incident management 

system/incident command system 

(IMS/ICS) (see “Unified Incident 

Management System/Incident 

Command System” below for details). 

J.	 Consider key personnel required to 

conduct the initial recovery and investigation operations. 

Summary. Based on the preliminary evaluation of the scene, first responders are 

expected to identify scene hazards, request emergency services, and establish 

an incident command post. 

II. Unified Incident Management 

System/Incident Command 

System 

Principle. Initiating a unified IMS/ICS is 

essential for deploying and managing 

resources at the scene of a mass fatality 

incident. This system establishes a primary point of contact at the scene, an 

effective line of communication, and the 

authority to enforce scene safety and 

security. The incident command can use 

this system to coordinate search, rescue, 

and recovery efforts; establish staging 

5 
SPECIAL REPORT / JUNE 05 

areas; and allocate resources, including 

equipment, supplies, and personnel. 

Procedure. The incident command is 

expected to implement the following 

procedures— 

A.	 Establish the incident command center. Possible sites may include: 

1. Airport hangar. 

2. Auditorium. 

3. Gymnasium. 

4. Warehouse. 

5. Tents and/or mobile units. 

B.	 Evaluate the initial response to the 

incident and coordinate subsequent 

actions. 

C.	 Establish staging area(s) for the 

assembly of the functional teams: 

1. Police, fire, and EMS personnel. 

2. Forensic recovery and identification 

specialists. 

D.	 Establish other functional areas as 

required: 

1. First aid center. 

2. Temporary morgue. Possible sites 

may include: 

a. National Guard armory. 

b. Airport hangar. 

c. Warehouse. 

3. Family assistance center (FAC). 

Possible sites may include: 

a. Hotel/motel. 

b. Conference/convention center. 

c. Auditorium. 

4. Communication center. 

5. Media staging area. 

6. Briefing/debriefing area. 

7. Stress management/support area. 

E.	 Address other issues directly related 

to the recovery effort: 

1. Parking areas. 

2. Utilities/power supply. 

3. Biohazard/refuse removal. 

4. Storage areas for equipment and 

supplies. 

5. Responder accommodations 

(including meals, lodging, and 

restrooms). 

6. Administrative/operational


resources:


a. Office supplies/equipment. 

b. Electronic/computer equipment. 

c. Identification/recovery tools. 

d. Safety equipment. 

e. Vehicles. 

Summary. The incident command is responsible for implementing a unified IMS/ 

ICS to facilitate the coordination, documentation, and recovery/collection of remains, personal effects, and evidence. The 

incident command should use this system 

to secure the scene, manage and allocate 

resources, and ensure safety of all personnel involved in the rescue and recovery 

operations. 

III. Scene Safety 

Principle. Safety overrides all other concerns. First responders must take steps to 

identify and remove or mitigate safety hazards that may further threaten victims, 

bystanders, and public safety personnel. 

To avoid injuries to themselves and others, 

they must exercise due caution while performing emergency operations. 

6 
MASS FATALITY INCIDENTS: A GUIDE FOR HUMAN FORENSIC IDENTIFICATION 

Procedure. Following the preliminary evaluation of the scene, first responders are 

expected to— 

A.	 Assess and/or establish physical 

boundaries. 

B.	 Request and/or conduct a safety 

sweep of the area by personnel qualified to identify and evaluate additional 

hazards and safety concerns. 

C.	 Follow standard Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Occupational 

Safety and Health Administration 

(OSHA) regulations (see appendix A 

for agency contact information). 

D.	 Follow standard precautions for potential nuclear, biological, and chemical 

hazards. 

E.	 Mark hazard areas clearly and designate safety zones. 

F. Communicate hazards to other personnel arriving at the scene. 

G.	 Monitor the physical and psychological 

condition of personnel (e.g., dehydration, stress, and fatigue) and treat as 

necessary. 

Summary. Safety is the overriding concern during emergency operations and the 

subsequent investigation. To ensure the 

safety of civilians and public safety personnel, first responders should take steps to 

identify, evaluate, and mitigate scene hazards and establish safety zones. 

IV. Security and Control 

Principle. First responders are responsible 

for establishing control and restricting 

scene access to authorized personnel. 

Procedure. To establish scene security 

and control, first responders are expected 

to— 

A.	 Set up a security perimeter. 

B.	 Establish staffed entry/exit points. 

C.	 Restrict access (e.g., by the media, 

bystanders, and nonessential personnel) into and out of the scene and 

secured areas through the security 

perimeter: 

1.	 Issue site-specific identification 

badges (for the FAC, temporary 

morgue, etc.), if possible. 

2. Maintain and update access logs/ 

databases. 

3. Brief/debrief personnel when they 

enter or leave the staging areas. 

D.	 Remove unauthorized personnel from 

the scene. 

E.	 Establish staging areas: 

1.	 Parking area (for emergency response vehicles). 

2. Media staging area (for releasing 

information to the public about the 

incident). 

Summary. First responders are expected 

to establish a controlled security perimeter 

and designate staging areas. 

V. Rescue-to-Recovery Transition 

Principle. The shift from search-andrescue to search-and-recovery operations 

represents a major operating transition. 

The incident command is responsible for 

coordinating search-and-recovery efforts 

with the remains/evidence processing 

teams. 

Procedure. The incident command, together with the remains/evidence processing team leaders, is expected to consider 

the following when shifting the operation 

from search and rescue to search and 

recovery— 

A.	 Identify and select the remains/ 

evidence processing team members. 

7 
SPECIAL REPORT / JUNE 05 

B.	 Implement a simple, consistent, and 

expandable numbering system for remains, personal effects, and evidence. 

C.	 Establish recovery and evidence processing procedures relevant to the 

type and extent of the incident. 

Regardless of the type of incident, consider all 

remains, personal effects, and other items 

recovered as evidence. 

D.	 Document the location, collection, and 

removal of remains, personal effects, 

and other evidence. 

E.	 Establish onscene staging areas to 

facilitate the efficient processing of 

collected items. 

F.	 Assign rotating shift schedules. 

G.	 Provide the remains/evidence processing teams with regular breaks, debriefings, and stress management. 

Summary. The incident command is expected to implement procedures to initiate 

the transition between search-and-rescue 

and search-and-recovery operations. 

8 
Section 3: Processing the Scene 


I. Initial Considerations 

Principle. The complete and accurate identification of remains and evidentiary processing begins at the scene of the mass 

fatality incident. In most circumstances, 

the medical examiner/coroner has the ultimate responsibility for the recovery and 

identification of the deceased. The remains/ 

evidence processing teams have to assume 

that any mass fatality scene could be a 

crime scene. They are expected to carefully document every piece of physical evidence recovered from the scene. The 

scene should be large enough to ensure 

its protection from public access until all 

agencies have agreed to release the scene. 

Although teams can discard information 

later, scene processing always involves 

the physical destruction of the actual 

scene, and additional information may not 

be recoverable after the scene has been 

processed and released. Efficient information recovery proceeds from the least intrusive to the more intrusive (e.g., taking 

photographs is allowed only after teams 

locate, flag, and sequentially number the 

remains). Although protocols may change 

in the middle of an event depending on 

the scope and extent of the incident, documenting every aspect of the remains/ 

evidence processing operation will ensure 

the preservation of information. 

Procedure. Before processing the scene, 

the incident command, in consultation 

with the medical examiner/coroner, is 

expected to— 

A.	 Identify team leaders responsible for 

remains/evidence processing. 

B.	 Determine the size and composition 

of the remains/evidence processing 

teams (usually a function of the team 

leaders), which may include: 

1. Medical examiner/coroner. 

2. Forensic anthropologist. 

3. Odontologist. 

4. Police crime scene investigator. 

5. Forensic photographer. 

6. Evidence technician. 

7. Scribe/notetaker. 

C.	 Integrate the remains/evidence processing teams according to existing 

interagency jurisdiction and chain of 

command. The scope and extent of 

the mass fatality incident determines 

the number of agencies involved. 

D.	 Establish and/or verify control over 

access to the scene. 

E.	 Establish communication among transport vehicles, the incident command, 

and the morgue. 

F. Establish an onscene remains processing station. 

G.	 Consider the recovery of remains and 

personal effects as evidence and preserve the chain of custody throughout 

the recovery operation. 

Summary. Effective organization and composition of the remains/evidence processing teams ensures the proper collection 

and preservation of remains, personal 

effects, and evidence. 

II. Establish a Chain of Custody 

Principle. Establishing and maintaining a 

chain of custody verifies the integrity of 

the evidence. The remains/evidence processing teams are expected to maintain 

the chain of custody throughout the recovery process. 

Procedure. Throughout the investigation, 

those responsible for preserving the chain 

of custody are expected to— 

9 
SPECIAL REPORT / JUNE 05 

A.	 Document the time of arrival and III. Scene Imaging and Mapping

departure of other personnel at the Principle. The remains/evidence process- scene. 

ing teams can use a grid system to divide

B.	 Establish a standard numbering sys- the scene into manageable units to show 

tem at the scene that relates back to the location and context of items (i.e., 

the location of the remains/evidence. their positions relative to other items) at 

the scene. A grid system may need to be 

three-dimensional. 

The remains/evidence processing teams are 

responsible for assigning numbers according 

to the order in which they locate and mark 

remains, personal effects, and evidence. 

Ensure that the numbering system is: 

1.	 Internally consistent and crossreferenced with other agencies. 

2. Expandable. 

3. Simple to interpret. 

4. Capable of indicating where the 

remains, personal effects, and evidence were recovered. 

5. Capable of tracking remains, personal effects, and evidence throughout the investigation. 

6. Related to subsequent individual 

results without error. 

7. Integrated into all protocols and 

reports. 

C.	 Document the collection of evidence 

by recording its location at the scene 

and time of collection. 

D.	 Document all transfers of custody 

(including the name of the recipient 

and the date and manner of transfer). 

Summary. Maintaining the chain of custody by properly documenting, collecting, 

and preserving the evidence ensures its 

integrity throughout the investigation. 

Procedure. The remains/evidence processing teams are expected to— 

A.	 Record overall views of the scene 

(e.g., wide-angle, aerial, 360-degree) 

with a designated photographer to 

relate items spatially within the scene 

and relative to the surrounding area. 

A combination of still photography, 

videotaping, and other techniques is 

most effective. Remember to: 

1.	 Consider muting the audio portion 

of any video recording unless there 

is narration. 

2. Minimize the presence of scene 

personnel in photographs/videos. 

3. Maintain photo and video logs. 

B.	 Identify boundaries and fixed landmarks (e.g., a utility pole, building corners, or GPS-located points). 

C.	 Establish a primary point of reference 

for the scene. 

D.	 Divide the scene into identifiable sectors and create a checkerboard. 

E.	 Use accurate measuring devices. 

Suggestion: Consider using steel tapes (which 

do not stretch) and electronic measuring/positioning devices. Consult with Department of 

sonnel, and local and State law enforcement 

agencies for models and specifications. 

Transportation officials, crime laboratory per10 
MASS FATALITY INCIDENTS: A GUIDE FOR HUMAN FORENSIC IDENTIFICATION 

Summary. The remains/evidence processing teams are responsible for establishing 

an accurate, logical mapping system for 

the scene. 

IV. Document the Location of 

Remains, Personal Effects, and 

Evidence 

Principle. The remains/evidence processing teams are expected to include documentation in the permanent record of the 

scene. Photographic documentation creates a permanent record of the scene that 

supplements the written incident reports. 

The teams are expected to complete this 

documentation, including location information, before the removal or disturbance of 

any items. Videotaping may serve as an 

additional record but not as a replacement 

for still photography. 

Procedure. The remains/evidence processing teams are expected to— 

A.	 Photograph individual items (midrange 

and close) with an identifier (i.e., a grid 

identifier and/or individual item number) and scale. Consider including a 

directional compass arrow that points 

north. 

B.	 Attach identifying numbers and flag all 

remains, personal effects, and evidence in the grid: 

1. Use a waterproof ink marker. 

3. Notes that may help with personal 

identification or scene reconstruction (e.g., generic descriptors, such 

as a foot or shoe). 

4. Documentation of the evidence collector (e.g., the collector’s unique 

identifier and the date and time of 

recovery). 

D.	 Conduct the systematic removal 

of remains, personal effects, and 

evidence: 

1.	 Using a permanent marker, mark 

the outside of the primary bag or 

container and tag with the identifying number, the collector’s unique 

identifier, and the date and time of 

collection. 

2. Place the same identifying number 

on the inside of the body bag or 

other bag or container. 

3. Do not remove any personal effects 

on or with the remains. Transport all 

personal effects on or with the 

remains to the morgue. 

4. When necessary, wrap the head 

before moving it to protect cranial/ 

facial fragments and teeth. 

Do not assume that fragmented remains are 

associated with each other. 

2. Ensure that numbers on the flags 

correspond with those on the remains and are also clearly discernible in the photograph. 

C.	 Ensure that the systematic onscene 

documentation of all remains, personal 

effects, and evidence includes: 

1.	 The sequential numbering system 

at the scene. 

2. Recovery location information. 

E.	 After removing the remains, photograph the areas from which evidence 

was recovered to document whether 

anything was under the remains. 

F. After the remains/evidence processing 

teams have cleared the area and 

before releasing the scene for public 

access, conduct a final shoulder-toshoulder sweep search to locate any 

additional items. 

11 
SPECIAL REPORT / JUNE 05 

Summary. The remains/evidence processing teams must properly document the 

collection of all remains, personal effects, 

and evidence before removing them from 

the scene. 

V. Onscene Staging Area 

Principle. The remains/evidence processing teams should use the onscene staging 

area for checking documentation, maintaining the chain of custody, and conducting potential triage functions. At this area, 

the remains/evidence processing teams 

can add notes to aid personal identification 

at the morgue (e.g., comments about tattoos, marks, and scars) and identify contents of body bags (e.g., watches, body 

parts). The remains/evidence processing 

teams are responsible for closing and locking body bags at this point. 

Procedure. The remains/evidence processing teams are expected to— 

A.	 Establish a staging area proximate to 

the incident scene that provides maximum security from public and media 

scrutiny and access (including a no-fly 

zone over the site). 

B.	 Remand evidence that is not required 

to accompany the remains to the mortuary to the custody of the appropriate 

agency. 

C.	 Maintain the chain of custody of body 

bags: 

1.	 Maintain a log of the body bags that 

are transported from the staging 

area to the morgue. 

2. Record drivers’ names and the 

license numbers of vehicles. 

3. Record dates and times that all 

vehicles leave for the morgue. 

D.	 Maintain equipment and supplies at 

the staging area. Inventory resources 

may include: 

1.	 A large tent. 

2. Body/storage bags. 

3. Litters, gurneys, and stretchers for 

remains transport. 

4. Refrigeration vehicles. 

5. Emergency lighting. 

6. Sawhorses with plywood boards 

for makeshift examination tables. 

7. Tarpaulins or other screening 

materials to create visual barriers. 

8. Decontamination control. 

9. Inventory control system. 

10. Equipment storage. 

11.	 Personal protective equipment. 

E.	 Notify the morgue when transport of 

remains will begin. 

Summary. The remains/evidence processing teams are expected to maintain a secure 

triage area for initial examination of remains and other evidence and to ensure 

secure transport to the morgue. Strongly 

consider placing forensic identification 

specialists at the staging area, as initial 

evaluations at this point will dictate the 

efficiency of subsequent morgue operations. 

12 
Section 4.1 

Identification of Human Remains— 

Medical Examiner/Coroner 

Section 4.2 

Identification of Human Remains— 

Administration/Morgue Operations 

Section 4.3 

Identification of Human Remains— 

Forensic Anthropology 

Section 4.4 

Identification of Human Remains— 

DNA Analysis 

Section 4.5 

Identification of Human Remains— 

Fingerprints 

Section 4.6 

Identification of Human Remains— 

Odontology 

Section 4.7 

Identification of Human Remains— 

Radiology 

Section 4.8 

Identification of Human Remains— 

Antemortem Data Collection 

13

Identification of Human Remains SECTION 4 
Section 4.1: Identification of Human Remains— 

Medical Examiner/Coroner 

In addition to identification, the medical examiner/coroner should be aware of the role that 

bodies and fragments play in determining the 

cause and effect of the incident. 

I. Define Expectations and 

Responsibilities 

Principle. The medical examiner/coroner 

is responsible for the medicolegal investigation of the incident, including human 

factor considerations (e.g., toxicology). A 

mass fatality incident does not diminish 

this responsibility. The office of the medical examiner/coroner is in charge of the 

documentation, examination, identification, recovery, disposition, and certification 

of all remains as well as morgue operations. Additional assistance from other 

organizations and agencies is subject to 

the discretion and approval of the medical 

examiner/coroner. 

If the medical examiner/coroner is not 

equipped to assume responsibility for managing morgue operations, a Disaster Mortuary 

sponsible for appointing a forensic pathologist 

or temporary medical examiner/coroner who is 

capable of overseeing all morgue operations 

and administrative functions. The extent and 

role of a DMORT remains at the discretion of 

Operational Response Team (DMORT) is rethe local medical examiner/coroner. 

Procedure. Following a mass fatality incident, the medical examiner/coroner is 

expected to— 

A.	 Assume responsibility for the death 

investigation. 

B.	 Review the scope of the incident. 

C.	 Determine the need for additional 

assistance (e.g., Disaster Mortuary 

Operational Response Team [DMORT] 

and/or the Federal Bureau of Investigation [FBI] Disaster Squad) (see 

appendix B for details regarding 

DMORT activation). 

D.	 Establish morgue operations and 

security. 

E.	 Review and document the evidence. 

F.	 Identify the deceased. 

G.	 Appoint an individual responsible for 

organizing authorized site visits and for 

coordinating daily briefings/debriefings 

with the mass fatality task force, the 

victims’ families, and the media. 

H.	 Issue death certificates for all victims. 

Summary. The medical examiner/coroner 

is expected to assume jurisdictional responsibility for conducting all aspects of 

the death investigation. 

II. Establish Morgue Operations 

and Security 

Principle. The medical examiner/coroner 

establishes morgue operations to ensure 

the proper collection, labeling, examination, preservation, and transportation of 

recovered remains. The medical examiner/coroner properly tags and inventories 

15 
SPECIAL REPORT / JUNE 05 

each piece of evidence. This function also 

includes safeguarding all potential physical 

evidence and/or property and clothing that 

remain on the deceased. 

Procedure. The medical examiner/coroner 

is expected to— 

A.	 Limit access to entry/exit areas: 

1.	 Maintain and update a registry 

of solicited volunteers and their 

qualifications. 

2. Maintain and update a registry of 

unsolicited volunteers (whose services may or may not be required). 

B.	 Issue/verify identification badges with 

photographs or other secure identifiers 

(e.g., thumbprints). 

C.	 Determine/review staffing needs 

and ensure adequate facilities and 

equipment. 

D.	 Differentiate normal from mass fatality 

morgue cases. 

E.	 Assign reasonable work schedules. 

F. Consider providing stress management counseling for the remains/ 

evidence processing teams, morgue 

staff, and their families. 

G.	 Maintain a daily activity log that 

records: 

1. The identification, reassociation, 

and disposition of all remains. 

2. An inventory of donated, loaned, or 

purchased items. 

Summary. Implementing morgue operation and security procedures facilitates 

the proper identification of the deceased, 

maintains a proper chain of custody, and 

safeguards property and evidence. 

III. Examine and Document 

Remains 

Principle. The examination and documentation of remains provides detailed information about the deceased’s physical 

attributes and the possible cause, manner, 

and circumstances of death. The medical 

examiner/coroner is responsible for maintaining all records and documentation, 

including notes, diagrams, photographs, 

radiographs/x-rays, fingerprints, and other 

images. 

Procedure. The medical examiner/coroner 

is expected to— 

A.	 Document where the remains were 

found and where death occurred. 

B.	 Control and document how the 

remains are transported from the 

scene to the morgue. 

C.	 Ensure that all remains are properly 

photographed. 

D.	 Document the presence or absence of 

clothing and personal effects. 

E.	 Diagram/describe in writing items 

of evidence and their relationship to 

the remains (with necessary 

measurements). 

F. Document general physical 

characteristics. 

G.	 Document the presence or absence 

of specific marks, scars, tattoos, and 

external prostheses: 

1.	 Ensure total body radiographs/x-rays 

are made (if indicated). 

2. Provide anthropological consultation 

(if indicated). 

H.	 Document the presence or absence of 

injury/trauma. 

I.	 Document fingerprints (and handprints, toe prints, or footprints if 

indicated). 

16 
MASS FATALITY INCIDENTS: A GUIDE FOR HUMAN FORENSIC IDENTIFICATION 

J.	 Document the presence or absence of 

any items or objects that may be relevant (including internal prostheses, 

implants, etc.). 

K.	 Document the dental examination (see 

“Section 4.6: Identification of Human 

Remains—Odontology” for procedures). 

L.	 Collect appropriate DNA and toxicology samples (see “Section 4.4: 

Identification of Human Remains— 

DNA Analysis” for procedures). 

M. Conduct a complete autopsy (if 

indicated). 

Summary. The medical examiner/coroner 

evaluates and documents all evidence 

related to the remains to establish the 

identity of the deceased and determine 

the cause and manner of death. 

IV. Collect, Inventory, and Secure 

Personal Effects and Evidence 

on/in Remains 

Principle. Medical examiners/coroners are 

expected to safeguard the valuables and 

property of the deceased to ensure proper 

processing and eventual return to the legal 

next of kin. They also are expected to safeguard evidence on or near the remains to 

ensure its availability for further evaluation. 

Procedure. The medical examiner/coroner 

is expected to ensure that all property and 

evidence is collected, inventoried, protected, and released as required by law 

according to the following functions— 

A.	 Photograph the evidence (include an 

identification number with each photograph), including: 

1.	 Remains. 

2. Physical characteristics (e.g., 

tattoos, scars, or marks). 

3. Wounds. 

4. Personal effects (e.g., clothing and 

jewelry). 

B.	 Collect associated physical evidence 

(e.g., explosives residue or other trace 

material). 

C.	 Collect, inventory, and safeguard 

money at the scene and the morgue 

(with a witness present). 

D.	 Collect, inventory, and safeguard personal valuables/property (e.g., clothing 

and jewelry) at the scene and the 

morgue: 

1.	 Collect and store personal effects in 

paper bags (for airing and drying). 

2. Clean each personal item removed 

from the remains (especially jewelry) and preserve with an appropriate 

identification number. 

before cleaning and cataloging them. 

Take DNA samples from personal effects 

3. Use photographs when applicable 

for viewing and recognition by family members. 

Summary. Collecting property and preserving evidence is critical for ensuring the 

chain of custody and admissibility in cases 

of legal action. 

V. Establish Identification of the 

Deceased 

Principle. Confirming the identity of the 

deceased is critical to the death investigation. Proper identification is necessary to 

notify the legal next of kin, resolve estate 

issues and criminal/civil litigation, and 

issue death certificates. 

Procedure. The medical examiner/coroner 

is responsible for establishing the identity 

of the deceased using the following 

methods— 

17 
SPECIAL REPORT / JUNE 05 

A. Presumptive: 

1.	 Direct visual or photographic identification of the deceased if visually 

recognizable. 

2. Personal effects (e.g., wallets, 

jewelry), circumstances, physical 

characteristics, tattoos, and anthropological data. 

B. Confirmatory: 

1.	 Fingerprints (including handprints, 

toe prints, and footprints if 

indicated). 

2. Odontology. 

3. Radiology. 

The medical examiner/coroner is expected to 

conduct regular meetings with those assisting 

before releasing the remains. 

with the identification of the deceased to ensure concordance and resolve discrepancies 

4. DNA analysis. 

5. Forensic anthropology. 

Summary. The medical examiner/coroner 

is expected to use all available methods of 

identification to confirm the identity of the 

deceased. Confirming identity is essential 

for resolving investigative, family, estate, 

judicial, and vital record issues. 

18 
Section 4.2: Identification of Human Remains— 

Administration/Morgue Operations 

I. Establish Morgue Operations 

Principle. Establishing morgue operations 

during a mass fatality incident may require 

expanded operations. The medical examiner/coroner is usually responsible for coordinating the logistical requirements to 

support sustained operations in an orderly 

environment. 

Procedure. Consider the following functional areas in order to sustain the morgue 

operations from intake to release/ 

disposition— 

A.	 Identify the morgue operations supervisor, usually the medical examiner/ 

coroner or designee, responsible for 

directly supervising the following 

individuals: 

1.	 Public information officer (PIO). 

2. Safety officer. 

3. Liaison officer for interagency 

coordination. 

B.	 Identify the operations section leader 

(not necessarily a forensic specialist), 

who is expected to: 

1.	 Report directly to the medical 

examiner/coroner. 

2. Supervise the overall morgue 

operation. 

C.	 Plan in advance of the incident for the 

use of forensic identification specialists (e.g., DNA analysts, fingerprint 

examiners, forensic anthropologists) 

who are expected to report to the 

medical examiner/coroner. 

D.	 Establish the following resource management units: 

1.	 Resource unit (for tracking available 

resources and staff work schedules). 

When the medical examiner/coroner requires 

teams of forensic specialists, ensure that team 

leaders are selected and introduced to the meduals designated to serve as the functional 

heads of forensic identification teams (e.g., finThey are responsible for organizing and directing the teams’ activities. Effective team leaders 

typically have experience working a mass fatality incident and understand the forensic issues 

ized certifications in their disciplines. 

ical examiner/coroner. Team leaders are individgerprints, forensic anthropology, odontology). 

involved. Team leaders may also have special2. Situation unit (for collecting and 

entering data, preparing reports, 

and developing projections). 

3. Documentation unit (for organizing 

and maintaining all records). 

4. Demobilization unit (for releasing 

the scene). 

Summary. Establishing an effective 

morgue operation helps ensure proper 

investigation, identification, and return of 

remains and personal effects to the legal 

next of kin. 

II. Establish Workstation Flow 

Principle. Ensuring the systematic and 

comprehensive examination of the remains effectively leads to a positive identification and preservation of evidence. 

Procedure. The following functional activities are suggested in the order listed, but 

that order may be altered to accommodate 

the situation (see appendix C for workflow 

diagrams for forensic identification and 

forensic information management and 

coordination)— 

19 
SPECIAL REPORT / JUNE 05 

A.	 Establish and secure an intake/ 

admitting/triage area: 

1.	 Assign escorts (one escort per body 

or set of remains). 

2. Assign a case number. 

3. Establish a case file. 

4. Weigh (and measure if applicable) 

the remains. 

5. Conduct triage. 

B.	 Photograph remains and personal 

effects. 

Summary. Effective and organized workstations at the morgue facility provide for 

an orderly and consistent operation and 

reduce the potential for error. 

III. Establish a Forensic 

Identification Team 

Principle. The medical examiner/coroner is 

responsible for establishing an identification team of specialists from a variety of 

forensic disciplines. These identification 

specialists are expected to compare antemortem to postmortem records and report 

their findings to the medical examiner/ 

coroner for review and final approval. 

Procedure. Depending on the extent of 

the incident, consider the following forensic identification specialists for comparing 

antemortem to postmortem records— 

A.	 Evidence technician. 

B.	 Fingerprint examiner. 

C.	 Forensic anthropologist. 

D.	 DNA analyst. 

E.	 Odontologist. 

F.	 Forensic photographer. 

G.	 Pathologist. 

H.	 Radiologist and radiographic technicians. 

I.	 Toxicologist. 

Summary. A forensic identification 

team is an essential part of the forensic 

investigation. 

IV. Other Considerations 

Principle. In addition to overseeing morgue 

operations, the medical examiner/coroner 

is expected to consider other details critical to the efficient collection, identification, 

documentation, and release of remains 

and personal effects. 

Procedure. The medical examiner/coroner 

is expected to consider the following— 

A.	 Use recognized, standard forms for 

the collection, collation, and matching 

of antemortem with postmortem 

records. 

Many of these sample forms are available 

through agencies via the Internet or on 

CD–ROM. Many of the agencies listed in 

appendix A offer electronic forms. 

B.	 Establish and/or maintain a simple, 

concise, and continuous numbering 

system. 

C.	 Conduct regular team briefings: 

1.	 Consider scheduling and conducting 

daily briefings for all personnel 

involved. 

2. Schedule briefings to cover shift 

changes, personnel transitions, 

duration of work, and rumor control. 

D.	 Establish morgue security by restricting morgue access to authorized 

personnel. 

E.	 Prohibit personal photography. 

F. Monitor the physical condition and 

emotional well-being of those allowed 

to assist in the morgue operation. 

20 
MASS FATALITY INCIDENTS: A GUIDE FOR HUMAN FORENSIC IDENTIFICATION 

Restricting access to the morgue preserves 

the integrity of the investigation, maintains the 

dignity of the deceased, limits exposure to 

chemical and biological hazards, minimizes the 

access to log documentation, and prevents the 

contamination of evidence. 

Review records to ensure that all forms are 

that all images are accounted for and logged. 

tigation that leads to the identification and 

disruption of the chain of custody, restricts 

accurate, legible, complete, and signed. Verify 

Summary. Maintaining proper morgue 

operations helps to ensure a quality invesdisposition of the deceased. 

G.	 Provide family support to members of 

the remains/evidence processing and 

morgue operation teams, including: 

1. Grief counseling. 

2. Phone/Internet access. 

H.	 Recognize the contributions of first 

responders, morgue staff, and members of the various forensic identification teams after releasing the scene. 

Consider using the Internet and facsimile 

machines for the transfer of antemortem 

records and documents. Be aware that lines of 

communication may be down in the early hours 

following a mass fatality incident. Hard copies 

of documents must follow electronic transfer 

to ensure the chain of evidence. 

I. Maintain quality control. 

21 
Section 4.3: Identification of Human Remains—


Forensic Anthropology 

I. Role of the Forensic 

Anthropologist 

Principle. The forensic anthropologist 

assists in the recovery and identification of 

remains following a mass fatality incident. 

A forensic anthropologist has specialized training, education, and experience in the recovery, 

sorting, and analysis of human and nonhuman 

remains, especially those that are burned, commingled, and traumatically fragmented. 

Procedure. In a mass fatality incident, the 

forensic anthropologist assists in the recovery, sorting, analysis, and identification 

of remains. Specifically, with regard to the 

identification of human remains, the forensic anthropologist is expected to— 

A.	 Provide information concerning the 

biological characteristics (e.g., age at 

death, sex, race, and stature) of the 

deceased. 

B.	 Assist the medical examiner/coroner 

in determining the circumstances surrounding the death of the individual. 

Summary. The forensic anthropologist is 

expected to assist with the recovery, 

analysis, and identification of the remains. 

II. Initial Evaluation 

Principle. The specifics of the mass fatality incident determine the relative state of 

preservation and degree of fragmentation 

of the remains. 

Procedure. The forensic anthropologist is 

expected to— 

A.	 Evaluate and document the condition 

of the remains, including: 

1. Complete remains. 

2. Fragmented remains. 

3. Burned remains. 

4. Decomposed remains. 

5. Commingled remains. 

6. Any combination of the above. 

B.	 Separate obviously commingled remains to calculate the minimum number of individuals, while ensuring 

continuity of the established numbering system. 

C.	 Analyze the remains to determine sex, 

age at death, stature, and other distinguishing characteristics. 

D.	 Assist in determining the need for 

additional analysis by other forensic 

identification disciplines (e.g., radiology, odontology). 

E.	 Maintain a log of incomplete remains 

to facilitate future reassociation. 

F. Document, remove, and save nonhuman and/or nonbiological materials for 

proper disposal. 

Summary. The forensic anthropologist 

assesses the condition of the remains and 

assists in analyses. 

III. Forensic Anthropological 

Analysis 

Principle. The forensic anthropologist 

is expected to analyze the remains, 

depending on their condition, using various methods to determine biological 

attributes (e.g., age, sex, race, stature, and 

23 
SPECIAL REPORT / JUNE 05 

idiosyncrasies). Even very small skeletal 

fragments may be useful in both personal 

identification and determination of the circumstances surrounding death. 

Procedure. The forensic anthropologist is 

expected to evaluate, when possible, the 

following— 

A.	 Sex. 

B.	 Age at death. 

C.	 Race. 

D.	 Stature. 

E.	 Antemortem pathological conditions 

(e.g., diseases or healed fractures). 

F. Anomalies/abnormalities (including surgical hardware and prosthetic devices). 

G.	 Perimortem trauma. 

Summary. The forensic anthropologist is 

expected to use skeletal features to develop a biological profile. 

IV. Additional Forensic 

Procedures 

Principle. The forensic anthropologist is 

expected to assist in other procedures and 

use additional information from other forensic identification specialists in the analysis of remains. 

Procedure. The forensic anthropologist is 

expected to assist with the following— 

A.	 Obtaining DNA samples from soft tissue and bone. 

B.	 Taking and interpreting radiographs/ 

x-rays. 

C.	 Interpreting trauma (with the medical 

examiner/coroner). 

D.	 Obtaining and isolating dental 

evidence. 

E.	 Comparing antemortem and postmortem records. 

Summary. The multidisciplinary approach 

to the identification process is vital to the 

successful response to and outcome of a 

mass fatality incident. 

24 
Section 4.4: Identification of Human Remains—


DNA Analysis 

I. Initial Considerations 

Principle. For cases involving mass fatalities and/or highly fragmented remains, 

DNA provides an essential component of 

the identification process. DNA analysis 

can 1) identify the victims, 2) associate 

fragmented remains, and 3) assist in ongoing medical and legal investigations. The 

medical examiner/coroner is responsible 

for making the initial decision as to the 

primary goal of the DNA identification 

efforts: whether to pursue a medical legal 

finding of death for each victim or to identify all biological material recovered. This 

decision will have a significant impact on 

the scope of the identification process. 

Procedure. The availability and utilization 

of DNA resources will vary according to 

the scope of the incident as well as the 

jurisdiction. The medical examiner/coroner 

is expected to evaluate the available DNA 

testing resources and establish formal 

agreements with laboratories capable of 

supporting the jurisdiction’s mass fatality 

contingency plan. 

A.	 Resources. The ready availability of 

high-throughput DNA analysis is capable of meeting the many complexities 

presented by larger mass fatality incidents and/or severe victim fragmentation. Smaller incidents may not require 

special resource considerations relating to specimen tracking and DNA analytical throughput. However, specimen 

tracking, data management, and the 

interpretation of results represent 

significant challenges. It is essential to 

have an inventory system available to 

log and track potentially tens of thousands of specimens. Testing laboratories are expected to use specialized 

software to facilitate the tracking, 

searching, and interpretation of large 

numbers of DNA profiles. 

B.	 Technology. The medical examiner/ 

coroner, in consultation with the DNA 

laboratory, is expected to determine 

which DNA analysis methods will be 

used to assist in the identification 

process. 

C.	 Timelines. The medical examiner/ 

coroner, in consultation with the DNA 

laboratory, is expected to establish 

realistic timelines for the completion of 

the DNA identification process based 

upon an assessment of the laboratories’ capacities and data interpretation 

capabilities. The medical examiner/ 

coroner is expected to resist adjusting 

timelines based on influences that 

could be detrimental to the overall 

identification effort. 

Summary. Adequate resources and realistic timelines play a significant role in determining the extent to which DNA analysis 

may be used in the identification process. 

II. Sample Collection for DNA 

Analysis 

Principle. DNA analysis is a comparison 

science requiring one or more valid reference samples to identify human remains 

accurately. Three types of biological 

samples are collected to conduct DNA 

analysis— 

A.	 Human remains. 

B.	 Appropriate family references. 

C.	 Direct references (e.g., biological specimens and personal effects). 

Collect samples in a manner that prevents 

loss, contamination, or deleterious change 

and that involves the initiation of a proper 

chain of custody. Ensure that sample preparation includes provision for specimen 

25 
SPECIAL REPORT / JUNE 05 

inventory, appropriate transport and storage of large numbers of samples, and 

accompanying documentation. 

Procedure. Consider these following 

steps when collecting the following reference samples— 

A. Human remains: 

1. Collection: 

a. Collect, place, and appropriately 

store samples of suitable size in 

separately labeled containers 

(see appendix D for detailed DNA 

sample collection procedures). 

b. Store samples without preservatives (e.g., formaldehyde). 

c. When possible, collect samples 

from human remains for DNA 

analysis in conjunction with other 

forensic specialists at the designated morgue facility. 

2. Documentation: 

a. Ensure that all remains submitted for DNA analysis have been 

photographed and documented 

at the designated morgue facility. 

b. Use a numbering system that is 

integrated or derived from the 

incident management system/ 

incident command system (IMS/ 

ICS) to uniquely identify each 

specimen. This can reduce transcription errors, minimize confusion, and reduce the possibility 

of misattribution that can arise 

from the use of alternative or 

redundant numbering systems. 

Avoid creating a new numbering 

system whenever possible. 

3. Staff: 

a. Designate qualified staff members responsible for collecting 

samples for DNA analysis. This 

collection process may involve 

teams of two or more individuals: 

1) The staff member who takes 

the sample (e.g., the medical 

examiner/coroner or anthropologist) is expected to be able 

to assess its suitability for 

DNA analysis and identify the 

species and anatomical origin 

of the specimen. 

2) The staff member who records 

the sample verifies the sample 

description, assigns or maintains a unique identifier, maintains the chain of custody, and 

ensures proper storage (e.g., 

freezing the sample in a secure location). 

b. Request that the staff involved 

in collecting samples provide a 

DNA reference sample to be 

used for elimination purposes. 

4. Samples for analysis. Take specimens for analysis from: 

a. Positively identified remains. Take 

samples for DNA analysis even if 

the remains have already been 

identified because the DNA results can be used for reassociation of fragmented remains, the 

identification of kindred victims, 

or elimination purposes. 

b. Fragmented remains. The medical examiner/coroner is expected 

to determine the goal of the identification effort and establish criteria for sample collection: 

1) Will all fragments be tested? 

2) Will only fragments meeting 

a certain size requirement be 

tested? 

3) Will only anatomically recognizable fragments be tested? 

26 
MASS FATALITY INCIDENTS: A GUIDE FOR HUMAN FORENSIC IDENTIFICATION 

5. Preferred samples. Human remains 

sources include: 

a. Blood. 

b. Soft tissue: 

1) Deep red skeletal muscle. 

2) Organ tissue. 

3) Skin. 

c. Hard tissue:


1) Bones.


2) Teeth. 


6. Sample handling: 

a. Tell staff members responsible 

for collecting DNA samples for 

analysis to take proper precautions to minimize the risk of 

contamination. 

b. Handle samples in a manner that 

prevents loss or deleterious 

change: 

1) Use sterile and disposable 

supplies for sample collection 

whenever possible. 

2) Discard or clean gloves and 

cutting instruments after taking each sample. 

3) Clean instruments, work surfaces, gloves, or other items 

with commercial bleach (one 

part bleach to nine parts 

water). 

B. Family references: 

1. Collection: 

a. Initiate the collection of reference samples from members of 

the victims’ immediate families 

at the family assistance center 

(FAC) or other designated sites. 

b. Develop and implement a plan to 

initiate the remote collection of 

reference samples from family 

members. Use other agencies to 

assist as necessary. 

c. Place and appropriately store 

individual reference samples in 

separately labeled containers. 

2. Documentation: 

a. Obtain and document informed 

consent using consent forms 

that have undergone legal 

review: 

1) Include the purpose for 

requesting the sample. 

2) Describe the intended use of 

the sample, restrictions on its 

use, and the confidentiality of 

the DNA results. 

b. Identify the donor: 

1) Confirm the donor’s credentials. 

2) Clearly establish the donor’s 

biological relationship to the 

victim. 

3) Obtain the donor’s contact 

information. 

4) Use an appropriate form (see 

appendix E for DNA sample 

family reference collection 

forms). 

c. Originate and maintain a chain 

of custody for donor reference 

samples. 

d. Initiate a logical numbering system for all reference samples 

that is compatible with the IMS/ 

ICS (e.g., consider allocating a 

predetermined block of numbers 

to assist in identifying the source 

of the sample). 

3. Staff: 

a. Identify and utilize appropriate 

individuals or agencies for the 

collection of family reference 

samples. 

27 
SPECIAL REPORT / JUNE 05 

b. Train individuals to: 

1) Interact with victims’ relatives 

with sensitivity. 

2) Use the proper collection 

methods (e.g., buccal swabs, 

fingerstick devices). 

3) Record accurate and reliable 

kinship information. 

4. Preferred samples: 

a. Blood sample collected using 

venipuncture or a fingerstick 

device. 

b. Two properly collected buccal 

swabs. 

5. Preferred donors. Collect the following types of samples from the preferred donors indicated: 

a. Short tandem repeat (STR) or 

other autosomal markers. Preferably, collect samples from the 

following: 

1) Either or both biological parents of the victim. 

2) The victim’s mate and their 

biological children. 

3) Biological siblings who share 

the same parents as the 

victim. 

b. Mitochondrial DNA. Use maternally related family members as 

references. 

c. Y-chromosomal markers. Use 

paternally related family members as references. 

The suitability of the donor depends on the type 

of DNA analysis used. Consult the testing laboratories for clarification. 

C. Direct reference samples: 

1. Collection: 

a. Immediately establish a point of 

contact responsible for receiving 

and managing the collection of 

direct reference samples. 

b. Ensure that the FAC and other 

family services widely publicize 

the name or location of the point 

of contact and a list of items suitable for direct DNA referencing. 

c. Notify family members that they 

can submit direct reference samples at the same site where they 

provide family reference samples. 

d. Place and appropriately store 

individual reference samples in 

separately labeled containers. 

2. Documentation: 

a. Obtain appropriate documentation to allow for the correlation of 

direct reference samples to a 

particular victim. 

b. Originate and maintain a chain of 

custody. 

c. Initiate a logical numbering system for all reference samples 

that is compatible with the IMS/ 

ICS (e.g., consider allocating a 

predetermined block of numbers 

to assist in identifying the source 

of the sample). 

3. Samples for analysis: 

a. Take care in choosing appropriate 

direct reference samples for 

analysis. 

b. Ensure that more than one item 

is submitted. 

c. Ensure that items are: 

1) Directly attributable to the 

victim. 

2) Submitted as soon as possible. 

28 
MASS FATALITY INCIDENTS: A GUIDE FOR HUMAN FORENSIC IDENTIFICATION 

4. Preferred samples: 

a. Biological samples suitable for 

testing include: 

1) Bloodstain cards (e.g., Guthrie 

cards or cards obtained from 

other repositories). 

2) Buccal swabs (e.g., home 

DNA identification kits). 

3) Blood stored for elective 

surgery. 

4) Pathology samples (e.g., biopsy samples, PAP smears). 

5) Extracted teeth (e.g., baby or 

wisdom teeth). 

6) Hair samples. 

b. Personal items include: 

1) Used toothbrushes. 

2) Used shavers/razors. 

3) Unwashed undergarments 

and other suitable clothing 

items. 

4) Used personal hygiene items 

(e.g., feminine sanitary 

napkins). 

5) Other personally handled or 

used items (consult the testing laboratory for specific 

criteria). 

Personal items may need to be returned to 

donors. 

Summary. The proper selection, documentation, and handling of samples and 

corresponding reference submissions for 

DNA analysis can provide maximum assistance for identifying the deceased. 

III. DNA Analysis Data 

Management 

Principle. The process of accumulating, 

reviewing, and interpreting DNA data is 

the most challenging step when employing DNA technology to identify mass fatality victims. The difficulty of this task is 

compounded when more than one laboratory is involved in providing DNA results. 

Participating laboratories should affirm 

their mutual commitment, coordinate and 

track sample flow, and agree to use compatible software applications for data 

acquisition and interpretation. 

Procedure. DNA data management requires a laboratory information management system (LIMS) to inventory, locate, 

maintain chain of custody, and document 

the disposition of samples— 

A.	 Conduct DNA analysis at a single laboratory whenever possible to minimize 

complications associated with sample 

and data exchange. 

B.	 Conduct DNA analysis at more than 

one testing facility if the scope of the 

incident exceeds a single laboratory’s 

capabilities. In such an event, ensure 

that the participating laboratories support compatible software applications 

for sample tracking, testing data production, and subsequent interpretation: 

1.	 Identify a single coordinating laboratory responsible for: 

a. Evaluating methods. 

b. Ensuring data quality. 

c. Tracking sample flow between 

laboratories. 

d. Ensuring data management. 

e. Searching for matches between 

victim samples and appropriate 

reference samples. 

f.	 Interpreting results. 

29 
SPECIAL REPORT / JUNE 05 g. Conducting administrative 

reviews. 

2. Establish a secure, rapid means 

of data transmission between the 

laboratories. 

3. Ensure that all laboratories use a 

sequential and consistent numbering system, including barcoding 

whenever possible. 

C.	 Accumulate all data into a single database for interpretation. 

Summary. Data management of the DNA 

analysis process can assist laboratories 

with the successful analysis of reference 

samples and the identification of the 

deceased. 

IV. Outsourcing 

Principle. In circumstances where the 

scope of the DNA analysis exceeds local 

capabilities, it may be necessary to subcontract DNA testing to one or more forensic DNA laboratories. Ensure that the 

capacities and capabilities of the selected 

laboratories are sufficient to meet the specific DNA analysis requirements. 

Procedure. Consider the following when 

selecting subcontracted laboratories— 

A.	 Employ specific guidelines to assess 

the abilities of laboratories before 

authorizing analysis. Criteria can 

include the following: 

1.	 Accreditation by the American 

Society of Crime Laboratory 

Directors/Laboratory Accreditation 

Board (ASCLD/LAB) or certification 

by the National Forensic Science 

Technology Center (NFSTC) or other 

recognized accrediting/certifying 

organizations for compliance with 

national DNA standards. 

2. Additional accreditation or certification as required to satisfy local jurisdictional criteria. 

B.	 Confirm that laboratories have compatible DNA analysis methods, software applications, and modes of 

communication. 

C.	 Confirm that laboratories have proven 

experience processing reference samples and remains from a mass fatality 

incident. 

D.	 Assess the laboratories’ capacities and 

competing priorities. 

E.	 Maintain communication with participating laboratories throughout the 

identification process. 

F. Evaluate the laboratories’ performance 

through documentary review of previous audits or by conducting sample 

retesting, random reanalysis, and/or 

proficiency testing. 

Summary. Strict selection criteria, appropriate quality review, and effective communication can help to ensure that the 

data generated by the subcontracted laboratories can be used with confidence for 

identification purposes. 

V. Data Interpretation 

Principle. DNA results can be analyzed 

and technically reviewed according to 

preestablished criteria. The interpretation 

of DNA analysis results within the context 

of the identification process can be conducted by the coordinating laboratory (or 

in-house laboratory, if one is available) before reporting the results to the medical 

examiner/coroner. 

Procedure. The coordinating laboratory is 

expected to do the following before reporting DNA analysis results to the medical examiner/coroner— 

A.	 Use appropriately validated DNA analysis protocols and review procedures. 

B.	 Establish statistical criteria for kinship 

or direct reference matches, depending on the nature and scope of the 

incident. 

30 
MASS FATALITY INCIDENTS: A GUIDE FOR HUMAN FORENSIC IDENTIFICATION 

C. Ensure the availability of appropriate D. Whenever possible, confirm DNA 

software for storing and searching results from direct reference samples 

DNA profiles from victims and corre­ used for identification through kinship 

sponding reference samples. analysis or testing of a second direct 

reference sample. 

Some mass fatality incidents will require the 

capability to search large databases and clearly rank the significance of DNA matches. Consider making available individuals trained in 

the appropriate use of the computer software 

specifically used to develop kinship rankings. 

E.	 Consider DNA identifications putative 

until they have undergone administrative review by the medical examiner/ 

coroner. 

Summary. The proper interpretation and 

review of DNA analysis results will assist 

the medical examiner/coroner in the identification of victim remains. 

31 
Section 4.5: Identification of Human Remains—


Fingerprints 

I. Initiate Preparation for 

Fingerprint Activities 

Principle. Fingerprint identification is a 

positive means of identifying unknown victims and confirming the identification of 

those who are tentatively identified by 

other means (e.g., witness descriptions or 

photographs). 

Procedure. When it appears that the identification of mass fatality incident victims 

may be made or expedited by fingerprint 

identification, implement the following 

procedures— 

A.	 Obtain a list (e.g., a passengers’ manifest or employment records) and 

description (e.g., sex and date of birth) 

of possible victims: 

1.	 Obtain antemortem prints and 

document their source. 

2. Establish a log of antemortem 

prints. 

3. Establish antemortem and postmortem print files. 

B.	 Establish onscene protocols for the 

protection of fingerprints, palm prints, 

and footprints during collection and 

recovery operations. The protection of 

the hands, fingers, and feet by the 

remains/evidence processing teams is 

of paramount importance. 

C.	 Establish document control and maintain the chain of custody. 

D.	 Consult with the medical examiner/ 

coroner and other forensic identification specialists to establish morgue 

protocols before processing the 

remains. 

Summary. Appropriate preparation and 

documentation is essential for the successful identification of individuals by fingerprint examination. 

II. Prepare Morgue for 

Postmortem Fingerprint 

Examination 

Principle. The fingerprint processing of 

remains, especially those that have been 

burned or have sustained appendage trauma, may be a long and tedious function 

involving the use of surgical instruments, 

chemicals, and fingerprinting equipment. 

Procedure. A fingerprint processing area 

can include— 

A.	 Waist-high gurneys. 

B.	 Comparison work area. 

C.	 Specialized equipment (usually provided by the fingerprint examiner). 

D.	 Desk lighting and running water. 

E.	 Appropriate airtight containers to store 

fingers, toes, and any ridge material. 

Summary. Fingerprinting remains may be 

a long and difficult process. The morgue 

facility is expected to provide a properly 

equipped, safe, and adequate workspace 

to facilitate the identification process. 

33 
SPECIAL REPORT / JUNE 05 

III. Commence Print Processing 

Principle. In conjunction with the medical 

examiner/coroner, the fingerprint examiner 

is responsible for processing remains in an 

effort to record friction ridge skin for the 

purpose of identification. 

Procedure. When processing remains for 

fingerprints, palm prints, and footprints, 

the fingerprint examiner is expected to— 

A.	 Initiate and maintain an 

examination/activity log. 

B.	 Record and verify available identifying 

data (e.g., body number, basic 

descriptors). 

C.	 Photograph remains/friction ridge surfaces before processing. 

D.	 Examine for and collect trace evidence 

from friction ridge surfaces. 

E.	 Prepare friction ridge skin for printing. 

F. Obtain authorization from the medical 

examiner/coroner before removing fingers or hands: 

1.	 Label all removed body parts 

immediately. 

2. Ensure that all labeled body parts 

are reassociated with the appropriate body. 

G.	 Print all available friction ridge skin on 

hands and feet. 

H.	 Document the fingerprint examination 

process: 

1.	 Record the name of the fingerprint 

examiner (printed and signed) and 

date of examination on the fingerprint card. 

2. Document and log the number(s) 

assigned to the body/remains (including designation and descriptors) 

on the fingerprint card. 

3. Document friction skin area recorded as well as areas not available or 

unsuitable for recording. 

It may become necessary to fingerprint survivors of the incident for exclusionary purposes. 

Summary. When processing remains for 

identification, the fingerprint examiner is 

expected to record friction ridge surfaces 

printed, document the processes employed, and maintain legible and accurate 

records. 

IV. Conduct Comparison and 

Identification 

Principle. The comparison of antemortem 

fingerprint records with those obtained 

directly from the remains by the fingerprint examiner may lead to the positive 

identification of the deceased. 

Procedure. Upon obtaining the antemortem fingerprint records of potential 

mass fatality incident victims, the fingerprint examiner is expected to— 

A.	 Compare antemortem with postmortem prints. 

B.	 Identify a second qualified fingerprint 

examiner to verify all identifications 

(consistent with discipline standards) 

and document the findings on the 

postmortem card. 

C.	 Initiate automated fingerprint identification system (AFIS) searches in available databases if no antemortem 

prints are present. 

D.	 Notify the medical examiner/coroner of 

each identification in a timely manner. 

34 
MASS FATALITY INCIDENTS: A GUIDE FOR HUMAN FORENSIC IDENTIFICATION 

E. Comply with jurisdictional protocol Summary. Friction ridge skin provides a 

for the retention or disposition of proven means of identification. Only qualidocuments. fied fingerprint examiners are expected 

to make and certify comparisons and 

identifications. 

Potential sources of known fingerprints include 

employment and government/military service 

records. In some cases, latent handprints and 

footprints can be obtained by qualified personnel from homes, businesses, or personal 

effects of suspected victims. 

35 
Section 4.6: Identification of Human Remains—


Odontology 

I. Preparation 

Principle. Dental identification is a scientific and legally accepted form of human 

identification. The creation of the forensic 

dental team before a mass fatality incident 

is critical to a successful operation at the 

incident scene. The dental team leader is 

ultimately responsible for the entire dental 

team. The dental team leader is also responsible for coordinating activities with 

other agencies (e.g., Disaster Mortuary 

Operational Response Team [DMORT], 

Federal Bureau of Investigation [FBI], 

National Transportation Safety Board 

[NTSB]) and forensic identification disciplines (e.g., forensic anthropology, fingerprints, radiology). 

Procedure. The designated dental team 

leader is expected to— 

A.	 Establish a forensic dental identification team that includes antemortem, 

postmortem/radiology, and comparison/computer teams. 

B.	 Create a dental organizational chart 

to ensure the proper scheduling and 

management of the dental team. 

C.	 Establish sources of antemortem information and liaison with the family 

assistance center (FAC) (through the 

NTSB or another designated organization/agency) if available. 

D.	 Assign a team member to work with 

other forensic identification specialists 

and update the missing persons master list. 

E.	 Select the proper (printed and electronic) forms: 

1.	 Use standard forms for the entire 

operation (see appendix A for links 

to the forms listed below): 

a. Domestic forms (e.g., WinID or 

Victim Identification Program 

[VIP]). 

b. International forms (e.g., Disaster 

Victim Information [DVI]). 

2. Consider computer software for 

storing and comparing records and 

radiographs/x-rays (Digital Imaging 

and Communications in Medicine 

[DICOM]-compliant if possible). 

F. Determine required equipment/ 

supplies: 

1.	 Establish arrangements with suppliers. Mobile equipment can greatly 

increase the flexibility of the dental 

team. 

Consider the Disaster Mortuary Operational 

Response Team (DMORT) as a source for 

equipment, supplies, and personnel following a 

mass fatality incident (see appendix B for information about DMORT activation). 

2. Inventory the material assets that


are available onscene to the dental


team.


Summary. Preparation and training before 

an actual mass fatality incident are recommended. Proper preparation can facilitate 

the smooth and effective operation of the 

dental team. 

II. Collect and Preserve Dental 

Evidence 

Principle. In a mass fatality incident, bodies may be fragmented. Forensic odontologists are valuable at the scene to assist in 

the recognition, documentation, and 

preservation during transport of dental 37 
SPECIAL REPORT / JUNE 05 

remains. A variety of antemortem dental 

references may assist in the identification 

process. 

Procedure. The dental team is expected 

to— 

A.	 Identify, collect, and preserve dental 

evidence: 

1.	 Consider wrapping the craniofacial 

remains (i.e., the head) at the scene 

to prevent loss of teeth. 

2. Examine the body bag for possible 

loose dental remains and consider 

the use of large format (whole 

body/screening) radiography. 

3. Consider onscene dental radiographs/ 

x-rays for fragile evidence that may 

not survive transport to the morgue. 

B.	 Assist other forensic identification 

specialists (e.g., anthropologists and 

pathologists) with recognizing dental 

evidence. 

C.	 Request original antemortem dental 

information (including radiographs/ 

x-rays, films, photographs, casts, and 

electronic images) through the FAC 

or another designated agency/ 

organization if available. 

the authorization of records to facilitate communication between the dental team and the victims’ dentists. 

The family assistance center (FAC) can expedite 

Summary. Dental remains, which might 

be fragile and difficult to identify, may provide the only evidence for securing a positive identification of the victim. The dental 

team is expected to assist other forensic 

identification specialists as necessary. 

III. Dental Records 

Principle. Dental identification requires 

the comparison of antemortem with postmortem dental findings. These two types 

of dental records will reflect the comprehensive antemortem dental information 

(collected on a single form or record if possible) with the dental autopsy results. 

When questions arise, engage in dentistto-dentist discussions. 

Procedure. The following approach can 

ensure the proper documentation of dental identification procedures— 

A.	 Antemortem dental examination: 

1.	 Establish a contact/liaison with the 

agency or organization responsible 

for collecting antemortem dental 

information (e.g., the FAC, FBI, 

sheriff, or medical examiner/ 

coroner’s office). 

2. Consolidate individual antemortem 

dental information (e.g., medical 

and dental records, photographs, 

and radiographs/x-rays) into a single, 

comprehensive antemortem dental 

form/record using a standard charting format. This is perhaps the most 

important part of the dental identification operation. 

Be aware of different dental numbering systems 

(e.g., left versus right) and radiograph/x-ray 

mounting techniques (see tables for dental numbering systems in appendix F). 

3. Consider using computer-assisted 

programs to assist with the sorting 

and storage of both antemortem 

and postmortem information. 

38 
MASS FATALITY INCIDENTS: A GUIDE FOR HUMAN FORENSIC IDENTIFICATION 

4. Review relevant local, State, and 

Federal statutes to determine how 

to obtain antemortem information. 

The dental team leader can ensure quality control over the dental identification process by 1) 

assigning two or more individuals to each dental 

team and 2) reviewing (or assigning a designee 

to review) and approving all forms/records before the release of remains. 

B.	 Postmortem dental examination: 

1.	 Perform extra/intra-oral photography 

(either conventional or digital) as 

required. 

2. Obtain radiographs/x-rays: 

a. Obtain postmortem radiographs/ 

x-rays (either conventional or digital) according to guidelines recommended by the American 

Board of Forensic Odontology 

(ABFO). 

b. Ensure that the postmortem dental team leader reviews all postmortem radiographs/x-rays for 

quality control. 

Perform facial dissection to gain access only if 

required and approved by the medical examiner/coroner for clinical and radiographic examinations. If resection (i.e., removing the jaw 

fragment) is required, then it is imperative to 

label and bag these specimens and ensure they 

remain with the body. 

b. Assign more than one dental 

team member to conduct the 

examination and review results 

for quality control. 

4. Consolidate postmortem dental 

information (e.g., medical and dental records, photographs, and 

radiographs/x-rays) onto a single, 

comprehensive postmortem dental 

record/form using a standard charting format. 

Summary. The dental team can accomplish dental identification if there is adequate documentation of antemortem and 

postmortem evidence (e.g., clinical charting of dental procedures, radiographs/ 

x-rays, and photographic documentation 

of dental restorations, skeletal landmarks, 

or disease conditions). 

IV. Compare Records 

Principle. Dental identification is possible 

by comparing identified antemortem documentation with postmortem documentation of unknown remains from the incident 

scene. 

Procedure. The dental team is expected 

to— 

A.	 Compare summarized antemortem 

and postmortem information. 

mortem with postmortem information: 1) comparing hard copies manually by walking around 

a series of tables/view boxes or 2) using 

Two methods can be used for comparing antecomputer-assisted programs to prioritize a 

list of possible matches. 

3. Conduct the clinical examination: 

B.	 Ensure the mandatory peer review of a. Conduct a clinical examination to 

document postmortem dental the antemortem, postmortem, and 

findings. comparison record processes. 

39 
SPECIAL REPORT / JUNE 05 

C.	 Establish procedures for contacting 

dentists of record if the dental team 

requires additional dental information. 

Summary. Dental identification requires 

the comparison of antemortem and postmortem information. Dental identification 

teams involved in comparing information 

are expected to consider all methods available, including clinical restoration, skeletal 

(i.e., jaw and skull) anatomy, and observable diseases. Compare records according 

to standardized protocol. The dental team 

leader is expected to ensure the complete 

documentation of this comparison process. 

V. Final Comparison and 

Identification 

Principle. The dental team can make a 

dental identification by comparing a known 

reference (i.e., antemortem information) 

with dental information from unidentified 

remains. This process contributes to the 

final report issued by the medical examiner/ 

coroner. 

Procedure. The dental team is expected 

to— 

A.	 Use a comparison/summary form 

(i.e., one that incorporates text and/or 

graphical comparison data [e.g., WinID 

odontogram or radiographs/x-rays]) of 

the dental/anatomic similarities for 

both antemortem and postmortem 

dental information. 

B.	 Arrive at a conclusion (after comparing 

antemortem with postmortem dental 

information) reflected in the four categories below: 

1. Positive dental identification. 

2. Possible (i.e., “consistent with”) 

dental identification. 

The term “consistent with” implies a possible 

identification. Although it does not connote a 

positive identification, it helps prioritize a possible identification by other means. 

3. Exclusion. 

4. Inadequate information for


comparison.


C.	 Submit the signed and verified comparison document (e.g., a letter, a 

form, or an image-enabled report featuring pictures of radiographs/x-rays) to 

the medical examiner/coroner. 

Summary. The primary mission of the 

dental team is generating identification 

conclusions and reporting them to the 

medical examiner/coroner. 

40 
Section 4.7: Identification of Human Remains—


Radiology 

I. Introduction 

Radiology provides vital support to the 

medical examiner/coroner. The radiologist 

conducts radiograph/x-ray examinations 

to detect radiopaque evidence; identifies 

remains by comparing antemortem with 

postmortem radiographs/x-rays; and 

assists pathologists, anthropologists, 

and odontologists in the interpretation of 

radiographs/x-rays. The medical examiner/ 

coroner should consider establishing a 

radiology team early on in the investigation 

process. 

II. Equipment/Supplies 

Principle. The radiology team should use 

the necessary equipment and supplies to 

radiograph/x-ray remains. 

Procedure. The radiology team leader is 

expected to— 

A.	 Address radiation safety issues such 

as shielding. 

B.	 Identify sources of equipment or additional facilities. 

III. Radiographs 

Principle. Take radiographs/x-rays of all 

recovered remains before forensic processing. The radiology team may use additional imaging for clarification of details 

and potentially for primary radiographic 

identification. The radiology team leader is 

expected to check all radiographs/x-rays for 

supporting or exclusionary information 

before the release of the remains. 

Procedure. The radiology team is expected to— 

A.	 Conduct an initial radiograph/x-ray of 

the remains. 

B.	 Conduct additional radiographs/x-rays 

as requested by other forensic 

specialists. 

C.	 Appreciate special considerations 

(e.g., making radiographs/x-rays of the 

hands and feet of the flight crew) as 

they relate to the incident. 

D.	 Assist with the comparison of antemortem and postmortem radiographs. 

Summary. Radiology is a vital early step 

in processing the remains, supporting or 

excluding potential identification and 

potentially serving as a primary means of 

identification. 

41 
Section 4.8: Identification of Human Remains— 

Antemortem Data Collection 

Principle. The medical examiner/coroner 

may identify the deceased by the prompt 

and efficient use of samples and data from 

families, individuals, and public and private 

organizations. The data may be in electronic and/or printed form. The medical examiner/coroner must have unrestricted, rapid 

access to antemortem medical, dental, 

and other records for comparison. 

A.	 Before the legal next of kin arrive, 

identify a location and establish a site 

where they can meet to provide antemortem data and sample records (e.g., 

a hotel, auditorium, or conference 

center). 

B.	 Consider the following recommendations as a checklist for the FAC: 

1. Be prepared to meet the families as 

1996 establishes procedures for contacting the 

legal next of kin to request antemortem data. 

Federal law restricts the degree to which airline 

personnel are involved in the collection of antemortem data and samples. In non-transportationrelated incidents, a local or State government 

representative may assume these responsibilities. 

The Aviation Disaster Family Assistance Act of 

Procedure. The following are some but 

not all of the factors that the appropriate 

administrator is expected to consider in 

establishing a family assistance center 

(FAC)— 

The type of mass fatality incident determines 

who is responsible for establishing and opening 

■ 

carrier is expected to establish and staff the 

■ 

examiner/coroner is expected to consult local, 

State, and nongovernmental assistance 

agencies. 

■ For other types of disasters, consult with the 

primary industry involved. 

the family assistance center (FAC): 

In the event of an aviation disaster, the air 

FAC. 

In the event of a natural disaster, the medical 

they arrive. 

2. Assist when necessary in coordinating activities to meet the families’ 

physical and mental needs. 

3. Control who gains access to the 

FAC. 

4. Conduct briefings with the families 

as necessary. 

5. Provide a liaison between the families and the agencies involved when 

needed. 

6. Be prepared to collect antemortem 

data and provide it to the appropriate agencies as required: 

a. Ensure that interview rooms are 

private and quiet. 

b. Schedule and document all interviews with the legal next of kin. 

c. Limit the number of legal next of 

kin in each interview room. 

d. Require all interviewed legal next 

of kin to complete a personal 

interview form. 

7. Maintain confidentiality and the 

trust of the families. 

8. Consider any additional processes 

that the incident may require. Flexibility is the key word in this process. 

43 
SPECIAL REPORT / JUNE 05 

C.	 Contact the legal next of kin not present at the FAC: 

1.	 Schedule appointment times to con­


tact family members.


2. Review antemortem collection pro­


cedures with family members over


the telephone.


The medical examiner/coroner or designee may 

need to have victim records in foreign languages translated. See “Section 6: Other 

Issues” for details. 

3. Ensure that the interview is private E. Establish a location to receive all inand confidential.	 coming antemortem data and samples 

(expected to be sent via an express 

4. Complete a personal interview form delivery service or brought to a receivfollowing each telephone interview. ing area other than the morgue by a 

family member). D.	 Identify antemortem data/sample 

resources: F. Notify the legal next of kin when ante1. Samples provided by the legal next mortem data and samples have been 

received. of kin: 

a. Dental records.	 G. Maintain a log of all incoming 

data/samples. b. Medical records (including antemortem radiographs/x-rays). H. Direct all data/samples to the morgue 

for review and analysis. c. Fingerprints (derived from law 

enforcement, military, and Summary. Consider the wide range of

employment records). antemortem information that can aid in

d. Photographs.	 identification. 

e. Biological samples (e.g., tissue


blocks, slides, and DNA refer­


ence samples).


44 
Section 5: Disposition of Human Remains, 

Personal Effects, and Records 

I. Issuing the Death Certificate 

Principle. The documentation of the identification, cause, manner of death, and 

final disposition are required by law and 

used for vital statistics and the initiation of 

probate. 

Procedure. Medical examiners/coroners 

are expected to complete their portion and 

transmit the document with the release of 

the remains. As part of this process, they 

are expected to— 

A.	 Issue the death certificate. 

B.	 Record when appropriate the death 

certificate in the county or territory 

where the remains were recovered. 

Review local and State laws to determine the 

office/agency responsible for filing death certificates (usually the office of vital statistics). 

C.	 Issue a court-ordered certification of 

death when no human remains are 

recovered or scientific efforts for identification prove insufficient. 

Summary. The death certificate is the 

legal document that states the identification, cause and manner of death, demographic information, and final disposition 

of the remains. 

II. Disposition of Remains 

Principle. Every family is expected to have 

the opportunity to involve itself in the decisionmaking process for the disposition of 

remains. Public health issues associated 

with a mass fatality incident, however, 

may dictate the manner of disposition of 

the remains. 

Procedure. The medical examiner/coroner 

is expected to follow rules regarding the 

notification of the legal next of kin. Where 

appropriate, in cases of fragmentation 

and commingling, the medical examiner/ 

coroner is expected to explain to the families the options for disposition of any 

subsequently identified remains before 

releasing incomplete remains (see appendix G for a sample authorization form to 

release remains). 

A.	 Facilitate coordination between the 

family assistance center (FAC) or designated agency and local medicolegal 

authorities: 

1.	 Notify the legal next of kin after 

establishing identification according 

to State and territorial laws. 

2. If necessary, obtain additional 

instructions regarding the disposition of remains. 

B.	 Release all identified body parts submitted for special studies related to 

the identification process (except 

those specimens consumed by analysis or retained for further study). 

Summary. This process can facilitate the 

timely and dignified return of the remains, 

allowing the families to grieve, memorialize their loved ones, settle estates, and 

resolve legal issues. 

Different methods exist for the disposition of 

unidentified or unclaimed remains. If the 

remains are unidentified or identified but 

unclaimed, consider disposition according to 

local custom or statute. The medical examiner/ 

coroner can consider accessing the unidentified remains later as a desirable option. 

45 
SPECIAL REPORT / JUNE 05 

III. Return of Personal Effects 

Principle. Mass fatality incidents produce 

items physically on the human remains 

(associated) and items not directly on but 

adjacent or within close proximity to the 

human remains (unassociated). Associated 

items accompany the remains to the 

morgue. The medical examiner/coroner is 

expected to document these items, apply 

them toward the identification process if 

required, and facilitate their return. The 

medical examiner/coroner also is expected 

to implement a mechanism to safeguard 

cash and valuables. 

Procedure. The medical examiner/coroner 

is expected to accomplish and document 

the following to ensure the chain of 

custody— 

A.	 Release associated/unassociated personal effects to the agency designated 

to receive those effects: 

1.	 Follow existing local protocol governing the release of personal 

effects if no such agency exists. 

2. Consider legislation such as the 

Aviation Disaster Family Assistance 

Act of 1996, where applicable. 

B.	 Release unclaimed personal effects 

to the agency designated to receive 

those effects or dispose of them 

according to existing local protocol. 

Summary. Treat all recovered personal 

effects with care because of their importance in the identification process as well 

as their intrinsic value to the families. 

IV. Special Considerations 

Principle. Mass fatalities produce unique 

challenges that the medical examiner/ 

coroner should address when coordinating 

the disposition of remains and personal 

effects. 

Procedure. The medical examiner/coroner 

is expected to consider the following potential issues and consult with appropriate 

specialists as required— 

The medical examiner/coroner is expected to 

conduct regular meetings with those assisting 

with the identification of the deceased to ensure 

concordance and resolve any discrepancies 

before the remains are released. 

A.	 Review the work of each forensic 

identification team before releasing 

remains to the legal next of kin. 

B.	 Validate and consolidate all missing 

persons lists (e.g., flight manifests, 

hotel registries, and employee lists). 

C.	 Understand the legal issues (e.g., 

international law and treaties, maritime 

laws, health regulations, and hazardous materials [HAZMAT] protocols). 

D.	 Respect religious and cultural 

considerations. 

E.	 Identify the legal next of kin according 

to State and territorial law. 

Summary. Legal, cultural, and operational 

concerns require evaluation of each mass 

fatality incident from many different 

perspectives. 

V. Archiving Records 

Principle. The medical examiner/coroner 

is expected to keep all records and supporting documents pertaining to the recovery, identification, and disposition of remains 

and personal effects for future reference 

as required by statute. 

Procedure. The medical examiner/coroner 

can ensure the appropriate storage, security, preservation, and retrieval of records 

and supporting documents by— 

46 
MASS FATALITY INCIDENTS: A GUIDE FOR HUMAN FORENSIC IDENTIFICATION 

A.	 Archiving and cross-referencing records 

that can be retrieved as individual or 

group files for quick reference at any 

time. 

B.	 Using electronic storage and retrieval 

methods, if available, to archive records. 

Summary. Properly archived records allow 

for prompt retrieval of detailed information 

when requested for legal, information, or 

research purposes. 

A case involving an ongoing criminal investigation is exempt from release under State public 

records laws. Medical, dental, psychiatric, and 

prescription histories do not lose their privacy 

status and are not subject to the public records 

laws even after they are placed in the medical 

examiner/coroner’s case file. 

47 
Section 6: Other Issues


I. Reimbursing Local and State 

Agencies 

Principle. Mass fatality response operations incur expenses related to staffing, 

supplies, and equipment. Local/State 

emergency management departments 

should have the appropriate documents 

and procedures in place before a mass 

fatality incident occurs within their 

jurisdiction. 

Procedure. The appropriate administrator 

is expected to— 

A.	 Understand the regulations regarding 

reimbursement issues. 

B.	 Provide a responsible fiscal representative to oversee the creation of financial and expense records. 

C.	 Provide supporting documents to verify: 

1.	 The number and types of personnel 

involved. 

2. The number of hours worked by 

each individual. 

3. The agencies involved. 

4. The supplies and equipment used. 

5. The services contracted. 

D.	 Coordinate with other responsible 

agencies. 

E.	 Understand that some costs may be 

long term, including: 

1.	 Legal considerations. 

2. Employee health/mental health 

followup issues. 

3. Disposition of evidence, remains, 

and records. 

Summary. Reimbursement for personnel, 

supplies, equipment, and other related 

In aviation incidents, the air carrier may be 

responsible for some expenses incurred in the 

recovery and identification of remains. 

expenses is a critical consideration that 

requires careful planning and thorough 

documentation. 

II. Implementing a Transition Plan 

Principle. Effective operations require continuity of services. 

Procedure. The appropriate administrator 

is expected to— 

A.	 Establish criteria for daily shift 

changes. 

B.	 Establish criteria for the implementation of replacement teams. 

C.	 Facilitate the communication of information between teams. 

D.	 Plan regular meetings between incoming and outgoing teams. 

E.	 Hold regularly scheduled functional 

specialty meetings. 

Summary. Effective planning and communication through regularly scheduled 

meetings can foster the exchange of information between the agencies and individuals involved in the investigation. 

III. Mutual Assistance 

Agreements 

Principle. Mutual aid statutes and memoranda of understanding (MOUs) provide 

for assistance from other jurisdictions in 

obtaining required support services and 

equipment. 

49 
SPECIAL REPORT / JUNE 05 

Procedure. The appropriate administrator 

is expected to— 

A.	 Understand that jurisdictional and 

liability issues may affect the implementation of mutual assistance 

agreements. 

B.	 Understand the scope of services 

available through existing mutual aid 

statutes and how to implement such 

services. 

C.	 Identify additional needs for support 

and invoke additional MOUs specifying 

when and how these services may be 

implemented. 

D.	 Know that the National Association of 

Counties (NACO) and similar organizations maintain information and model 

plans on mutual aid (see appendix A 

for agency contact information). 

Summary. Prior planning and implementation of mutual assistance agreements and 

MOUs are critical to ensure cooperation 

and coordination in the provision of available services. 

IV. Release and Control of 

Information 

Principle. Information regarding the recovery and identification operations is a 

critical element that affects the family 

members and the overall operation. As 

a result, information released to the 

media and the public must be managed 

appropriately. 

Procedure. The appropriate administrator 

is expected to— 

A.	 Initiate and enforce uniform procedures determining the release and 

management of information. Recovery 

and identification personnel should refrain from unauthorized communication with the media. 

Be aware that families of the deceased require 

special consideration in the release and manwith families to provide information is critical. 

agement of information. Early, regular contact 

B.	 Designate a public information officer 

(PIO) to coordinate the release of information. Direct all media inquiries to the 

PIO. 

C.	 Establish categories of information for 

release to the media, families, agencies, and other parties. 

D.	 Use caution when discussing specific 

disaster-related issues away from the 

scene. 

E.	 Brief all personnel on a regular 

basis regarding the sensitivity of 

information. 

Summary. Proper management and 

release of information are necessary considerations to protect the integrity of the 

response. 

V. Scene Demobilization 

(Postincident Activities) 

Principle. The demobilization of agencies 

and individuals assigned to process a 

mass fatality scene requires careful planning. The participating agencies are expected to implement scene demobilization 

procedures only after the scene is ready 

for release. 

Procedure. The appropriate administrator 

is expected to— 

A.	 Establish a demobilization plan that 

includes the following: 

1.	 Ensure appropriate decontamination 

of equipment and facilities. 

2. Return donated/loaned equipment 

and supplies. 

50 
MASS FATALITY INCIDENTS: A GUIDE FOR HUMAN FORENSIC IDENTIFICATION 

3. Conduct postincident debriefings. 

4. Consult regularly with the other 

agencies involved. 

5. Recognize the efforts of the agencies and individuals who responded 

to the incident and processed the 

scene. 

B.	 Reduce staff in a coordinated fashion 

based on circumstances and the duration of the investigation. 

C.	 Prepare a formal after-action report citing optimal practices and lessons 

learned. 

Summary. Planning from the beginning 

for the demobilization of the response 

effort can facilitate the smooth transition 

of jurisdictional authority. 

VI. Stress Management 

Principle. Stress can negatively affect the 

responders, their coworkers, and the overall efficiency of incident operation. The response to a mass facility incident should 

include systems to deal with stress, whether 

psychological, physiological, acute, or long 

term. 

Procedure. The appropriate administrator 

is expected to— 

A.	 Establish a plan for recognizing and 

managing stress using personnel 

trained in mass fatality stress 

management. 

B.	 Consider briefing response personnel 

on stress issues before their 

assignment. 

C.	 Provide peer and professional support 

to observe and treat personnel who 

may be experiencing stress. 

D.	 Organize the response to prevent 

stress and accommodate individual 

behavior. 

E.	 Plan postincident stress debriefings for 

responders and volunteers. 

Summary. The psychological impact on 

mass fatality responders is real and needs 

to be addressed before, during, and after 

the incident. 

VII. Volunteers 

Principle. Volunteers may appear at the 

scene of a mass fatality incident regardless of the need for their services. Carefully consider choosing and using volunteers. 

Volunteers are expected to be used according to their knowledge, skills, and abilities 

as well as within liability limitations. 

Procedure. The appropriate administrator 

is expected to— 

A.	 Determine the need for volunteers. 

B.	 Maintain a roster of volunteers’ names 

with updated contact information. 

C.	 Establish criteria for verifying the credentials and qualifications of volunteers. Be wary of volunteers with 

ulterior motives. 

D.	 Develop a procedure to match volunteers with operational needs according 

to their knowledge, skills, and abilities. 

E.	 Ensure that volunteers are supervised 

by an appropriate official. 

Summary. Although volunteers may be 

helpful in some situations, cautiously 

review their credentials and qualifications 

for the duties and functions required. 

VIII. Language, Cultural, and 

Religious Considerations 

Principle. Language and cultural differences may complicate all parts of the 

mass fatality response and should be 

considered in the overall plan. 

51 
SPECIAL REPORT / JUNE 05 

Procedure. The appropriate administrator 

is expected to— 

A.	 Identify language service resources 

beforehand (e.g., colleges and universities, embassies, hospitals, and the 

U.S. Department of State). These resources may be valuable in interpreting antemortem information regarding 

foreign victims. 

B.	 Respect the cultural and religious differences that exist in response to 

death. 

C.	 Consider using local/regional religious 

officials when addressing these 

differences. 

Summary. Give advance consideration 

to language, cultural, and religious differences when planning the response. 

52 
Appendix A. Resources and Links


American Academy of Forensic 

Sciences (AAFS) 

P.O. Box 669 

Colorado Springs, CO 80901–0669 

719–636–1100 

http://www.aafs.org 

American Board of Forensic Anthropology 

(ABFA) 

http://www.csuchico.edu/anth/ABFA 

American Board of Forensic Odontology 

(ABFO) 

http://www.abfo.org 

American Red Cross 

http://www.redcross.org 

American Society of Forensic Odontology 

(ASFO) 

http://www.asfo.org 

Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP)


6825 16th Street N.W.


Washington, DC 20306–6000


202–782–2100


http://www.afip.org 


Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP)


Armed Forces DNA Identification 


Laboratory (AFDIL) 

Department of Defense DNA Registry 

1413 Research Boulevard 

Building 101, Second Floor 

Rockville, MD 20850–3125 

301–319–0000 

http://www.afip.org/Departments/ 

oafme/dna 

Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP) 

Department of Oral and Maxillofacial 

Pathology 

6825 16th Street N.W. 

Room 3096 

Washington, DC 20306–6000 

202–782–1800 

http://www.afip.org/Departments/ 

OMaxPath2/index.html 

Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP) 

Office of the Armed Forces Medical 

Examiner (OAFME) 

AFIP/OAFME, AFIP Annex 

1413 Research Boulevard 

Building 102 

Rockville, MD 20850 

800–944–7912 or 301–319–0000 

http://www.afip.org/Departments/oafme 

American Society of Crime Laboratory 

Directors (ASCLD) 

P.O. Box 2710 

Largo, FL 33779 

727–541–2982 

http://www.ascld.org 

American Society of Crime Laboratory 

Directors/Laboratory Accreditation Board 

(ASCLD/LAB) 

139 J Technology Drive 

Garner, NC 27529 

919–773–2600 

http://www.ascld-lab.org 

Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention (CDC) 

1600 Clifton Road 

Atlanta, GA 30333 

800–311–3435 or 404–639–3534 

http://www.cdc.gov 

Chemical Transportation Emergency 

Center (CHEMTREC) 

1300 Wilson Boulevard 

Arlington, VA 22209 

703–741–5525 

http://www.chemtrec.org 

Disaster Mortuary Operational Response 

Team (DMORT) 

http://www.dmort.org 

DMORT Victim Identification Program (VIP) 

VIP@DMORT.org 

53 
SPECIAL REPORT / JUNE 05 

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)


800 Independence Avenue S.W.


Room 810


Washington, DC 20591


http://www.faa.gov 


Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)


J. Edgar Hoover Building 

935 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W. 

Washington, DC 20535–0001 

202–324–3000 

http://www.fbi.gov 

FBI Critical Incident Response Group 

(CIRG) 

http://www.fbi.gov/hq/isd/cirg/ 

mission.htm 

FBI Disaster Squad 

http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/disaster/ 

disaster.htm 

FBI Evidence Response Team (ERT) 

http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/ert/ertmain.htm 

FBI Hazardous Materials Response Unit 

http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/org/hmru.htm 

FBI Laboratory 

http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/labhome.htm 

FBI Laboratory Services 

http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/org/labchart.htm 

Federal Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA) 

500 C Street S.W. 

Washington, DC 20472 

202–566–1600 

http://www.fema.gov 

FEMA National Urban Search and Rescue 

(US&R) Response System 

http://www.fema.gov/usr 

International Association of Coroners and 

Medical Examiners (IACME) 

P.O. Box 44834 

Columbus, OH 43204–0834 

614–276–8384 

International Association of Identification 

(IAI) 

2535 Pilot Knob Road 

Suite 117 

Mendota Heights, MN 55120–1120 

651–681–8566 

http://www.theiai.org 

International Police Criminal Organization 

(Interpol) 

200 quai Charles de Gaulle 

69006 Lyon, France 

Fax: (33) 4 72 44 71 63 

http://www.interpol.com 

Interpol Disaster Victim Identification (DVI) 

Guide 

http://www.interpol.com/Public/ 

DisasterVictim/Guide 

Interpol Disaster Victim Identification (DVI) 

Forms 

http://www.interpol.com/Public/ 

DisasterVictim/Forms 

National Association of Counties (NACO) 

440 First Street N.W. 

Suite 800 

Washington, DC 20001 

202–393–6226 

http://www.naco.org 

National Association of Medical Examiners 

(NAME) 

430 Pryor Street S.W. 

Atlanta, GA 30312 

404–730–4781 

http://www.thename.org 

National Guard Bureau 

1411 Jefferson Davis Highway 

Arlington, VA 22202–3231 

703–607–3162 

http://www.ngb.army.mil 

Air National Guard Readiness Center 

3500 Fetchet Avenue 

Andrews AFB, MD 20762–5157 

54 
MASS FATALITY INCIDENTS: A GUIDE FOR HUMAN FORENSIC IDENTIFICATION 

Army National Guard Readiness Center 

111 South George Mason Drive 

Arlington, VA 22204 

National Center for Forensic Science 

(NCFS) 

University of Central Florida 

P.O. Box 162367 

Orlando, FL 32816 

407–823–6469 

http://www.ncfs.org 

National Forensic Science Technology 

Center (NFSTC) 

7881 114th Avenue North 

Largo, FL 33773 

727–549–6067 

http://www.nfstc.org 

National Transportation Safety Board 

(NTSB) 

490 L’Enfant Plaza S.W. 

Washington, DC 20594 

202–314–6000 

http://www.ntsb.gov 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA) 

200 Constitution Avenue N.W. 

Washington, DC 20210 

http://www.osha.gov 

Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) 

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca 

U.S. Army Central Identification 

Laboratory, Hawaii (CILHI) [now Joint 

POW/MIA Accounting Command] 

310 Worchester Avenue 

Building 45 

Hickam AFB, HI 96853–5530 

808–448–8903 

http://www.cilhi.army.mil 

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) 

1000 Independence Avenue S.W. 

Washington, DC 20585 

800–DIAL–DOE (342–5363) 

http://www.energy.gov 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

Federal Emergency Management Agency 

National Disaster Medical System (NDMS) 

Section 

500 C Street S.W. 

Suite 713 

Washington, DC 20472 

800–USA–NDMS (872–6367) 

http://ndms.dhhs.gov 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

Office for Domestic Preparedness 

810 Seventh Street N.W. 

Washington, DC 20531 

800–368–6498 

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/odp 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office for Victims of Crime 

Victim Assistance Center 

810 Seventh Street N.W. 

Washington, DC 20531 

800–627–6872 

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

400 Seventh Street S.W. 

Washington, DC 20590 

202–366–4000 

http://www.dot.gov 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) 

Ariel Rios Building 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W. 

Washington, DC 20460 

202–272–0167 

http://www.epa.gov 

WinID (Dental Computer System) 

http://www.winid.com 

55 
Appendix B. Disaster Mortuary Operational 

Response Team Activation 

The Disaster Mortuary Operational Response Team (DMORT) is a federally funded team of forensic and mortuary personnel 

experienced in disaster victim identification. DMORT provides a mobile morgue, 

victim identification and tracking software, 

and specific personnel to augment local 

resources. DMORT is part of the National 

Disaster Medical System, a section of the 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 

Federal Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA). 

DMORT can be activated by one of four 

methods: 

Federal Disaster Declaration. The Federal 

Response Plan dictates how Federal agencies respond following a disaster. A request 

for DMORT assistance must be made by a 

local official through the State emergency 

management agency, which will then contact the regional office of FEMA. Based on 

the severity of the disaster, FEMA can ask 

for a Presidential disaster declaration, 

allowing the DMORT team to be activated. 

This process can take from 24 to 48 hours. 

Aviation Disaster Family Assistance Act. 

Under this Federal act, the National 

Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) can 

ask for DMORT’s assistance. The act covers most passenger aircraft accidents in 

the United States and U.S. territories. 

NTSB coordinates with the local medicolegal authority to assess local resources 

and capabilities and can activate DMORT 

on the request of the local authority. 

Public Health Act. Under this Act, the 

U.S. Public Health Service can provide 

support to a State or locality that cannot 

provide the necessary response. However, the State or locality must pay for 

DMORT’s services, including salary, 

expenses, and other costs. 

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) 

with Federal Agency. A Federal agency 

may request that DMORT provide disaster 

victim identification. Under this mechanism, the requesting agency must pay the 

cost of the DMORT deployment. As an 

example, following the crash of United 

Airlines Flight 93 in Pennsylvania on 

September 11, 2001, DMORT was activated under an MOU with the FBI. 

Other DMORT issues include the 

following: 

■ DMORT normally requires 24 to 48 

hours to become fully operational. 

■ The DMORT portable morgue requires 

a building for morgue operations. This 

guide lists potential disaster morgue 

sites capable of housing the DMORT 

morgue (see p. 6). 

■ The Federal Government pays travel, 

lodging, food, salary, and other expenses of DMORT personnel, except in the 

case of an activation under the Public 

Health Act. 

■ The DMORT team supports the local 

medicolegal authority by providing expertise, personnel, supplies, and equipment. The responsibility for assigning 

the cause and manner of death, signing 

of death certificates, and death notification remain with the local authority. All 

records created by DMORT should be 

left with the local authority. DMORT 

should provide identification reports and 

a computer program documenting the 

information collected during their 

response. 

57 
SPECIAL REPORT / JUNE 05 

■ The DMORT family assistance center ■ If a DMORT team member is activated

(FAC) team assists in the organization from your agency to work at a disaster, 

and operation of the FAC. that employee should present you with 

a copy of his or her travel orders as 

proof of activation. 

58 
Appendix C. Facilities/Organizational 

Flow Chart 

Exhibit C–1. Identification Flow Chart* 

Admitting Body escorts 

Screening/radiology 

Triage 

Photography of remains Personal effects and 

and personal effects evidence collection 

Pathology Forensic anthropology 

Fingerprints Morgue operations Odontology 

DNA Radiology 

Return to holding facility for final disposition 

*The following represents only a suggested model; this process may vary according to local circumstances. 

59 
SPECIAL REPORT / JUNE 05 

Exhibit C–2. Forensic Information Management and Coordination* 

Family Assistance Center 

Triage/admitting 

Pathology 

Forensic anthropology 

Radiology Odontology 

Antemortem/postmortem 

data collection and 

coordination 

Photography Fingerprints 

Personal effects DNA

PIO Identification review team Office administrator 

Medical examiner/coroner 

Positive identification 

Body released 

*The following represents only a suggested model; this process may vary according to local circumstances. 

60 
Appendix D. Procedures for DNA


Sample Collection 

The DNA sample team works in pairs: 

a recorder and a sampler. The recorder 

escorts the remains to the worktable. 

Both team members verify (or establish) 

unique identifiers and mutually acknowledge a site for sampling (if a decision is 

made not to sample the remains, the 

recorder notes that in the DNA Remains 

Tracking Log). 

The recorder enters the number, date, 

time, and description into a database or 

log and labels the specimen container 

(e.g., tube, bag, etc.) appropriately. 

Using the appropriate instruments, the 

sampler obtains one of the following, listed in order of preference: 

■ 10–15 g of deep skeletal muscle (avoid 

tissues that may have been crushed 

together by incident impact or blast 

forces). 

■ 1–2 cm x 4–6 cm x 0.5–1 cm of cortical 

bone (avoid anthropological landmarks, 

articular margins, and fresh-broken margins whenever possible; cut windows in 

long bones and crania). 

■ Upper or lower canine or other intact 

tooth without restorations (consult an 

odontologist if required). 

■ Other portion of soft or hard tissue that 

fits into a 50 ml conical tube. 

The recorder and sampler verify the placement of the sample in a properly labeled 

tube and the entry of the corresponding 

data in a sample log. The sampler disposes of the bench coat, scalpel blades, and 

rotary bits. The sampler cleans the cutting 

surface, scale, Stryker saw, rotary instrument, forceps, gloves, and hemostats 

with a 10-percent bleach solution, then 

wipes all surfaces down with ethanol. 

The medical examiner/coroner is expected 

to provide guidance to the DNA sample 

team regarding tissue samples that are 

likely to be exhausted during testing. 

If multiple, potentially unassociated remains are in a single recovery container, 

the recorder or sampler is expected to separately bag the remains from which the 

sample was taken. Later, when DNA results are obtained, the medical examiner/ 

coroner is expected to be able to return to 

that recovery container and attribute that 

profile to a specific tissue specimen with 

certainty. 

The chain of custody is expected to list all 

samples sent to the laboratory facility. On 

signing the chain of custody, the medical 

examiner/coroner is also expected to decide whether to return any remaining soft 

tissue or osseous sample after testing is 

completed. Because single, recovered 

teeth are submitted whole, consider how 

to return them after testing is completed. 

61 
Appendix E. DNA Sample Family Reference 

Collection Forms 

Donor Information 

Last Name First Name Middle Name 

Social Security Number (if applicable) Home Telephone Number 

Home Street Address 

City State ZIP Country 

Date of Birth (Month/Day/Year) 

Family Relationship 

Please circle your kinship to the missing individual. 

Grandmother Grandfather

Aunt Uncle Mother* Father* 

Female 

cousin 

Male 

cousin Sister* Brother* Missing 

individual* 

Second 

cousin Niece Nephew 

Great-niece Great-nephew Granddaughter Grandson 

Spouse* 

Daughter* Son* 

Great-niece Great-nephew Granddaughter Grandson 

Missing Individual Information 

Last Name First Name Middle Name 

Date of Birth (Month/Day/Year) Social Security Number (if applicable) 

*Primary donor for a nuclear DNA reference (see list of primary donors on p.64). 

63 
SPECIAL REPORT / JUNE 05 

Potential Living Biological Donors 

Mother/Father of Missing Individual 

Name Age Address Phone 

Brothers/Sisters of Missing Individual 

Name Age Address Phone 

Spouse of Missing Individual 

Name Age Address Phone 

Children of Missing Individual 

Name Age Address Phone 

Primary Donor for Nuclear DNA Analysis 

An appropriate family member for nuclear DNA analysis is someone who is biologically 

related to and only one generation removed from the deceased. The following are the 

family members who are appropriate donors to provide reference specimens, in the 

order of preference: 

1. Natural (biological) mother and father, or 

2. Spouse and natural (biological) children, or 

3. Natural (biological) mother or father and victim’s biological children, or 

4. Multiple full siblings of the victim (i.e., children from the same mother and father). 

64 
______________________________ ________________________________ _________________ 

______________________________ ________________________________ _________________ 

MASS FATALITY INCIDENTS: A GUIDE FOR HUMAN FORENSIC IDENTIFICATION 

Sample Donor Consent Form 

Note: This form is a sample only based on forms developed by the Armed Forces for the DOD DNA registry. The law concerning DNA samples varies across jurisdictions. Modify forms accordingly. 

PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT/STATEMENT OF CONSENT 

AUTHORITY:	 5 U.S.C. 301; 10 U.S.C. 3012; Pub. L. 91–121, Section 404 (a) (2); and 

memo dated 16 December 1991 from Deputy Secretary of Defense, 

Subject: DOD DNA Registry. Also under authority of 10 U.S.C. 176 

and 177, Pub. L. 94–361; DOD Directive 5154.23; and, if Social 

Security number collected, EO 9397. 

PRINCIPAL PURPOSE(S):	 Establish a DNA reference specimen repository and database of 

information from kindred family members of unaccounted for/unidentified service members or other individuals who need to be identified. DNA will be extracted from either vials of blood, dried blood, 

and/or oral swabs, and will be used in identifying human remains. 

ROUTINE USE(S):	 None. 

DISCLOSURE:	 Voluntary. Failure to provide reference sample or information may 

render DNA identification impossible. 

STATEMENT OF CONSENT 

The above answers are correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, and I understand that my 

answers are important in determining my kindred family relationship to an unaccounted for service 

member or other unaccounted for individual. I have also read the Privacy Act statement above. 

Realizing that nuclear or mitochondrial deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) may be extracted from my 

blood and used in the identification of a kindred family member, I agree to donate my blood, to 

have my DNA analyzed if necessary, and to have my name and other relevant typing information 

placed in a confidential registry or database for identification and statistical analysis. 

I am voluntarily donating tubes of blood via venipuncture, or if impracticable, consenting to the fingerstick method of securing a small amount of blood, or allowing the taking of an oral swab. 

I have not received a blood transfusion within the last 3 months (if you have received a transfusion, please wait for a period of 90 days following the transfusion before providing the reference 

sample). 

I consent to the Armed Forces using the information and specimens for the identification of any 

unaccounted for family members. 

Signature of Donor Printed Name of Donor Date


VERIFICATION OF DONOR IDENTIFICATION AND SPECIMEN COLLECTION


I have verified from a photo ID that the blood or other biological specimen collected has come from 

the above-stated donor, and have confirmed the donor’s name and/or Social Security number 

placed on the collection tubes. 

Signature of Collector Printed Name of Collector Date 

65 
Appendix F. Dental Numbering System


Exhibit F–1. Dental Nomenclature Conversion Table: Deciduous Teeth (Revised)a 

Deciduous Upper right Upper left 

System/toothb 2M 1M C I2 I1 I1 I2 C 1M 2M 

Universal A B C D E F G H I J 

Palmer E+ D+ C+ B+ A+ +A +B +C +D +E 

FDI 55 54 53 52 51 61 62 63 64 65 

Hareup 05+ 04+ 03+ 02+ 01+ +01 +02 +03 +04 +05 

Other V IV III II I I II III IV V 

Other 5D 4D 3D 2D 1D 1D 2D 3D 4D 5D 

Other d5 d4 d3 d2 d1 d1 d2 d3 d4 d5 

Other 5m 4m 3m 2m 1m 1m 2m 3m 4m 5m 

Other A B C D E E D C B A 

Other dm2 dm1 dc di2 di1 di1 di2 dc dm1 dm2 

FDI Modified 55 54 53 52 51 61 62 63 64 65 

Lower right Lower left 

2M 1M C I2 I1 I1 I2 C 1M 2M 

Universal T S R Q P O N M L K 

Palmer E- D- C- B- A- -A -B -C -D -E 

FDI 85 84 83 82 81 71 72 73 74 75 

Hareup 05- 04- 03- 02- 01- -01 -02 -03 -04 -05 

Other V IV III II I I II III IV V 

Other 5D 4D 3D 2D 1D 1D 2D 3D 4D 5D 

Other d5 d4 d3 d2 d1 d1 d2 d3 d4 d5 

Other 5m 4m 3m 2m 1m 1m 2m 3m 4m 5m 

Other A B C D E E D C B A 

Other dm2 dm1 dc di2 di1 di1 di2 dc dm1 dm2 

FDI Modified 75 74 73 72 71 81 82 83 84 85 

a

Compiled by Robert Dorion, D.D.S., Diplomate of the American Board of Forensic Odontology. Reprinted from Bowers, C. Michael, and 

Gary Bell, eds., Manual of Forensic Odonotology, 3d ed., American Society of Forensic Odontology, 1995. 

b

2M=second molar; 1M=first molar; C=cuspid; I2=second incisor (lateral incisor); I1=first incisor (central incisor) 

67 
SPECIAL REPORT / JUNE 05 

Exhibit F–2. Dental Nomenclature Conversion Table: Permanent Teeth—Upper (Revised)a 

Permanent Upper right Upper left 

System/toothb 3M 2M 1M 2P 1P C I2 I1 I1 I2 C 1P 2P 1M 2M 3M 

Other UR8 UR7 UR6 UR5 UR4 UR3 UR2 UR1 UL1 UL2 UL3 UL4 UL5 UL6 UL7 UL8 

Hareup 8+ 7+ 6+ 5+ 4+ 3+ 2+ 1+ +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 

Palmer 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 

Universal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 

FDI 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 

Bosworth 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 

Lowlands M3 M2 M1 P2 P1 C I2 I1 I1 I2 C P1 P2 M1 M2 M3 

Europe D8 D7 D6 D5 D4 D3 D2 D1 G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 G7 G8 

Holland sdM3 sdM2 sdM1 sdP2 sdP1 sdC sdI2 sdI1 sgI1 sgI2 sgC sgP1 sgP2 sgM1 sgM2 sgM3 

FDI Modified 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 

Other 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 

a Compiled by Robert Dorion, D.D.S., Diplomate of the American Board of Forensic Odontology. Reprinted from Bowers, C. Michael, and 

Gary Bell, eds., Manual of Forensic Odonotology, 3d ed., American Society of Forensic Odontology, 1995. 

b

3M=third molar; 2M=second molar; 1M=first molar; 2P=second premolar; 1P=first premolar; C=cuspid; I2=second incisor (lateral incisor), 

I1=first incisor (central incisor) 

Exhibit F–3. Dental Nomenclature Conversion Table: Permanent Teeth—Lower (Revised)a 

Permanent Lower right Lower left 

System/toothb 3M 2M 1M 2P 1P C I2 I1 I1 I2 C 1P 2P 1M 2M 3M 

Other LR8 LR7 LR6 LR5 LR4 LR3 LR2 LR1 LL1 LL2 LI3 LL4 LL5 LL6 LL7 LL8 

Hareup 8- 7- 6- 5- 4- 3- 2- 1- -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7 -8 

Palmer 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 

Universal 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 

FDI 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 

Bosworth H G F E D C B A A B C D E F G H 

Lowlands M3 M2 M1 P2 P1 C I2 I1 I1 I2 C P1 P2 M1 M2 M3 

Europe d8 d7 d6 d5 d4 d3 d2 d1 g1 g2 g3 g4 g5 g6 g7 g8 

Holland diM3 diM2 diM1 diP2 diP1 diC diI2 diI1 giI1 giI2 giC giP1 giP2 giM1 giM2 giM3 

FDI Modified 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 

Other 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 

a

Compiled by Robert Dorion, D.D.S., Diplomate of the American Board of Forensic Odontology. Reprinted from Bowers, C. Michael, and 

Gary Bell, eds., Manual of Forensic Odonotology, 3d ed., American Society of Forensic Odontology, 1995. 

b

3M=third molar; 2M=second molar; 1M=first molar; 2P=second premolar; 1P=first premolar; C=cuspid; I2=second incisor (lateral incisor), 

I1=first incisor (central incisor) 

68 
______________________________________________________________________________ 

Appendix G. Sample Remains Release 

Authorization Form 

Release Authorization 

Name of Deceased: ____________________________________________________________ 

Please be advised that identified human tissue will be buried in an appropriate manner. 

In the event any additional tissue(s) are recovered in the future and are identified as 

belonging to the above named deceased, I/WE request the following (please check ONE 

of the boxes below): 

❑ I/WE do not wish to be notified. I/WE are authorizing the appropriate administrator(s) 

to dispose of said tissue(s) by methods deemed appropriate by said administrator(s). 

❑ I/WE wish to be notified and will make a decision regarding disposition at that time. 

I/WE the undersigned hereby authorize ____________________________ to release the 

(Name of Medical Examiner/Coroner) 

remains of ______________________ to the designated Disaster Mortuary Operational 

(Name of Deceased) 

Response Team (DMORT). 

I/WE further authorize the designated DMORT to embalm, perform postmortem reconstructive surgery techniques, and otherwise prepare the remains as they deem necessary, and on completion to release the remains to 

(Name, Address, and Phone No. of Funeral Home/Agent). 

I/WE certify that I/WE have read and understand this RELEASE AUTHORIZATION. I/WE 

further state I/WE are all of the next of kin or represent all of the next of kin and am/are 

legally authorized and/or charged with the responsibility of burial and/or final disposition 

of above said deceased. 

Signed ___________________________ Relationship to Deceased _____________________ 

Print Name __________________________ Date Signed ______________ Time ___________ 

Complete Address _____________________________________________________________ 

Telephone Number _____________________________________________________________ 

Signed ___________________________ Relationship to Deceased _____________________ 

Print Name __________________________ Date Signed ______________ Time ___________ 

Complete Address ______________________________________________________________ 

Telephone Number _____________________________________________________________ 

Witness ______________________________________________________________________ 

Print Witness Name ____________________________________________________________ 

69 
List of Reviewers 

Academy of General Dentistry 

Academy of Radiology Research 

Air National Guard Readiness Center 

(Andrews AFB, Maryland) 

Alabama Emergency Management Agency 

Alaska Dental Society 

Alaska Division of Emergency Services 

American Academy of Experts in Traumatic 

Stress 

American Academy of Forensic 

Psychology 

American Academy of Forensic Sciences 

American Academy of Oral and 

Maxillofacial Pathology 

American Association of Dental Examiners 

American Association of Oral and 

Maxillofacial Surgeons 

American Bar Association 

American Board of Criminalistics 

American Board of Emergency Medicine 

American Board of Examiners in Crisis 

Intervention 

American Board of Forensic Anthropology 

American Board of Forensic Toxicology 

American Board of Medical Specialties 

American Board of Medicolegal Death 

Investigators 

American Board of Nuclear Medicine 

American Board of Oral and Maxillofacial 

Radiology 

American Board of Pathology 

American Board of Radiology 

American College of Emergency 

Physicians 

American College of Forensic Examiners 

American College of Radiology 

American Dental Association 

American Medical Association 

American Society of Crime Laboratory 

Directors 

American Society of Forensic Odontology 

American Society of Law Enforcement 

Trainers 

Arapahoe County Sheriff’s Office (Littleton, 

Colorado) 

Arizona Department of Health Services, 

Bureau of State Lab Services 

Arizona Department of Public Safety 

Arizona Division of Emergency 

Management 

Arkansas Department of Emergency 

Management 

Arlington County Sheriff’s Office (Virginia) 

Arlington Professional Firefighters and 

Paramedics Association (Virginia) 

Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP) 

AFIP, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial 

Pathology 

71 
SPECIAL REPORT /JUNE 05 

AFIP, Office of the Armed Forces Medical 

Examiner (OAFME) 

AFIP, OAFME, Department of Defense 

DNA Registry 

AFIP, OAFME, Department of Legal 

Medicine 

Armed Forces Radiobiology Research 

Institute 

Army National Guard Readiness Center 

(Arlington, Virginia) 

Association of Federal Defense Attorneys 

Association of Forensic DNA Analysts and 

Administrators 

Baptist Hospital East, Radiation 

Department (Louisville, Kentucky) 

Bexar County Forensic Science Center 

(San Antonio, Texas) 

Bode Technology Group, Inc. 

Broward County Sheriff’s Office (Fort 

Lauderdale, Florida) 

Bureau of Legal Dentistry (Vancouver, 

British Columbia) 

C.A. Pound Human Identification Lab, 

University of Florida 

California Criminalistics Institute 

California Dental Association 

California Department of Justice, Bureau 

of Forensic Services 

California Department of Justice, DNA 

Laboratory 

California State University, Center for 

Hazards Research 

California State University, Department of 

Anthropology 

Camden Police Department (Delaware) 

Canadian Centre for Emergency 

Preparedness 

Canadian Society of Forensic Science 

Carnegie Mellon University 

Celera Genomics 

Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention 

City of Boston Office of the Chief Medical 

Examiner (Massachusetts) 

City of Casselberry Police Department 

(Florida) 

City of Cleveland Heights Police 

Department (Ohio) 

City of Detroit Office of the Chief Medical 

Examiner (Michigan) 

City of Honolulu Department of the 

Medical Examiner (Hawaii) 

City of New York Office of the Chief 

Medical Examiner (New York) 

City of Richmond Office of the Chief 

Medical Examiner (Virginia) 

City of San Diego Office of the Medical 

Examiner (California) 

College of American Pathologists 

College of Mount St. Joseph, Department 

of Biology 

Colorado Bureau of Investigation 

Colorado College, Department of 

Anthropology 

Colorado Dental Association 

Colorado Emergency Management 

Association 

72 
MASS FATALITY INCIDENTS: A GUIDE FOR HUMAN FORENSIC IDENTIFICATION 

Colorado Office of Emergency 

Management 

Colorado State University 

Commission of Accreditation for Law 

Enforcement Agencies 

Connecticut Department of Public Safety 

Connecticut Office of Emergency 

Management 

Connecticut State Dental Association 

Connecticut State Police Forensic 

Laboratory 

Cook County Hospital, Radiology 

Department (Chicago, Illinois) 

Cook County Medical Examiner’s Office 

(Chicago, Illinois) 

Cook County Public Defender’s Office 

(Chicago, Illinois) 

Council of State Governments 

Delaware Department of Public Safety 

Delaware Emergency Management 

Agency 

Delaware Office of the Chief Medical 

Examiner (Wilmington, Delaware) 

Department of the Army, United States 

Army Criminal Investigation Laboratory 

Disaster Recovery Institute International 

(Falls Church, Virginia) 

Disaster Research Center (Newark, 

Delaware) 

District of Columbia Emergency 

Management Agency 

Dover Air Force Base (Dover, Delaware) 

Dupage County Coroner’s Office (Park 

Ridge, Illinois) 

Emergency Response and Research 

Institute 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Federal Bureau of Investigation 

Federal Emergency Management Agency 

Federal Law Enforcement Training Center 

First Special Response Group (Moffett 

Field, California) 

Florida City and County Management 

Association 

Florida Dental Association 

Florida Department of Law Enforcement 

Florida Division of Emergency 

Management 

Florida Highway Patrol 

Florida Society of Oral and Maxillofacial 

Surgeons 

Forensic Association of Philadelphia 

(Pennsylvania) 

Fulton County Medical Examiner’s Center 

(Atlanta, Georgia) 

Georgia Bureau of Investigation 

Georgia Emergency Management Agency 

Hawaii State Voluntary Organizations 

Active in Disaster 

Idaho Bureau of Disaster Services 

Illinois Emergency Management Agency 

Illinois State Police, Division of Forensic 

Science 

Indiana Coroners Association 

73 
SPECIAL REPORT /JUNE 05 

Indiana State Emergency Management 

Agency 

Indiana State Police 

Indiana University Medical Center 

Indiana University School of Dentistry 

Institute for Law and Justice (Alexandria, 

Virginia) 

International Association for Identification 

International Association for Identification, 

Arizona Division 

International Association for Identification, 

Chesapeake Bay Division 

International Association for Identification, 

Florida Division 

International Association for Identification, 

Georgia Division 

International Association for Identification, 

Illinois Division 

International Association for Identification, 

Iowa Division 

International Association for Identification, 

New Jersey Division 

International Association of Chiefs of 

Police 

International Association of Emergency 

Managers 

International Association of Fire Chiefs 

International City/County Managers 

Association 

International Commission on Missing 

Persons (Sarajevo, Bosnia-Herzegovina) 

International Critical Incident Stress 

Foundation 

International Police Criminal Organization 

(Lyon, France) 

International/American Association for 

Dental Research 

Iowa Emergency Management Division 

Iowa State Office of the Medical 

Examiner, Iowa Department of Public 

Health 

Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office (Golden, 

Colorado) 

Kansas Division of Emergency 

Management 

Kansas Voluntary Organizations Active in 

Disasters 

Kentucky Division of Emergency 

Management 

Kentucky Voluntary Organizations Active in 

Disasters 

Kenyon International Emergency 

Services, Inc. 

Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Office 

(California) 

Louisiana Dental Association 

Louisiana Office of Emergency 

Preparedness 

Louisiana State Coroners Association 

Louisiana State University School of 

Dentistry 

Lucas County Coroner’s Office (Toledo, 

Ohio) 

Maine Department of Defense, Veterans, 

and Emergency Management 

Marshall University, Forensic Science 

Center 

74 
MASS FATALITY INCIDENTS: A GUIDE FOR HUMAN FORENSIC IDENTIFICATION 

Maryland Emergency Management 

Agency 

Maryland State Dental Association 

Maryland Voluntary Organizations Active in 

Disasters 

Massachusetts Dental Society 

Massachusetts Emergency Management 

Agency 

Massachusetts Executive Office of Public 

Safety 

Massachusetts State Police 

Massachusetts State Police Crime 

Laboratory 

Medical College of Virginia 

Mercyhurst Archaeological Institute, 

Mercyhurst College 

Miami-Dade County Fire Rescue 

Department (Miami, Florida) 

Miami-Dade County Medical Examiner’s 

Office (Miami, Florida) 

Miami-Dade County Police Department, 

Crime Laboratory Bureau (Miami, 

Florida) 

Miami-Dade County Police Department, 

Criminal Investigations Division (Miami, 

Florida) 

Miami-Dade County Voluntary 

Organizations Active in Disasters 

Michigan State University, Department of 

Anthropology 

Mid-Atlantic Association of Forensic 

Scientists 

Midwestern Association of Forensic 

Scientists 

Milwaukee County Medical Examiner’s 

Office (Milwaukee, Wisconsin) 

Minnesota Department of Public Safety 

Minnesota Division of Emergency 

Management 

Minnesota Voluntary Organizations Active 

in Disasters 

Mississippi Crime Laboratory 

Mississippi Emergency Management 

Agency 

Missouri State Emergency Management 

Agency 

Montana Disaster and Emergency 

Services 

Myriad Genetics, Inc. 

National Association of Counties 

National Association of Criminal Defense 

Lawyers 

National Association of Medical Examiners 

National Association of Police 

Organizations 

National Center for Forensic Science 

National Center for Post Traumatic Stress 

Disorders 

National Disaster Medical System 

National District Attorneys Association 

National DNA Data Bank of Canada 

National Emergency Management 

Association 

National Emergency Response Team 

National Forensic Science Technology 

Center 

75 
SPECIAL REPORT /JUNE 05 

National Governors Association 

National Guard Bureau 

National Institute for Urban Search and 

Rescue (Santa Barbara, California) 

National Institute of Dental and 

Craniofacial Research 

National Institutes of Health 

National Law Enforcement Council 

National League of Cities 

National Legal Aid and Defender 

Association 

National Museum of Health and Medicine 

National Search and Rescue School 

(Yorktown, Virginia) 

National Sheriffs’ Association 

National Transportation Safety Board 

National Transportation Safety Board, 

Office of Family Affairs 

National Voluntary Organizations Active in 

Disaster 

Natural Hazards Center (Boulder, Colorado) 

Naval Dental Research Institute (Great 

Lakes, Illinois) 

Nevada Division of Emergency 

Management 

New Jersey Dental Association 

New Jersey Department of Law and 

Public Safety 

New Jersey State Police 

New Mexico Emergency Management 

Bureau 

New York City Police Department 

New York City Voluntary Organizations 

Active in Disaster 

New York State Division of Criminal Justice 

Services 

New York State Emergency Management 

Office 

New York State Police Crime Laboratory 

New York State Voluntary Organizations 

Active in Disasters 

North Carolina Dental Society 

North Carolina Department of Crime 

Control and Public Safety 

North Carolina Division of Emergency 

Management 

North Carolina Office of the Chief Medical 

Examiner (Chapel Hill, North Carolina) 

North Carolina State Board of Dental 

Examiners 

North Dakota Emergency Management 

Northeastern Association of Forensic 

Scientists 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Labor 

Office of Critical Infrastructure Protection 

and Emergency Preparedness (Ontario, 

Canada) 

Office of Emergency Preparedness, U.S. 

Department of Health and Human 

Services 

Ohio Dental Association 

Ohio Department of Public Safety 

Ohio State Coroners Association 

76 
MASS FATALITY INCIDENTS: A GUIDE FOR HUMAN FORENSIC IDENTIFICATION 

Oklahoma Department of Civil Emergency 

Management 

Oklahoma State Office of the Chief 

Medical Examiner 

Oklahoma Voluntary Organizations Active 

in Disasters 

Onondaga County Center for Forensic 

Sciences (Syracuse, New York) 

Orange County Fire and Rescue 

Department (Winter Park, Florida) 

Oregon Emergency Management 

Oregon State Police, Medical Examiners 

Division 

Pennsylvania Dental Association 

Pennsylvania Emergency Management 

Agency Eastern, Central, and Western 

Region Offices 

Pennsylvania Voluntary Organizations 

Active in Disasters 

Province of Alberta Office of the Chief 

Examiner (Edmonton, Canada) 

Province of Ontario Chief Coroner’s Office 

(Toronto, Canada) 

Province of Ontario Dental Identification 

Team (Canada) 

Pulaski County Coroner’s Office (Little 

Rock, Arkansas) 

Rhode Island Dental Association 

Rhode Island Emergency Management 

Agency 

Rhode Island Office of the Chief Medical 

Examiner 

Royal Canadian Mounted Police 

RPI/Titan Corporation 

Saint Louis University School of Medicine 

Sandia National Laboratories 

Search and Rescue Council of New Jersey 

Simon Fraser University, Department of 

Archaeology 

Smithsonian Institution Department of 

Anthropology, National Museum of 

Natural History 

Society of Forensic Toxicologists 

Society of Nuclear Medicine 

Society of Skeletal Radiology 

South Carolina Emergency Management 

Division 

South Dakota Division of Emergency 

Management 

Southern Association of Forensic 

Scientists 

Southern California Association of 

Fingerprint Officers 

Southern Institute for Forensic Science 

Southwest Texas State University, 

Department of Anthropology 

Southwestern Association of Forensic 

Scientists 

St. Louis County Medical Examiner’s 

Office (St. Louis, Missouri) 

Suffolk County Crime Laboratory 

(Hauppauge, New York) 

Suffolk County Dental Society (New York) 

Suffolk County Fire, Rescue, and 

Emergency Services (New York) 

Suffolk County Medical Examiner’s Office 

(Hauppauge, New York) 

77 
SPECIAL REPORT /JUNE 05 

Tarrant County Medical Examiner’s Office 

(Fort Worth, Texas) 

Tennessee Emergency Management 

Agency 

Texas Department of Public Safety 

Transportation Safety Board of Canada 

Tulsa Police Department (Tulsa, Oklahoma) 

U.S. Air Force Dental Investigation Service 

U.S. Air Force Rescue Coordination Center 

U.S. Army Central Identification Laboratory 

(Hickam AFB, Hawaii) [now Joint 

POW/MIA Accounting Command] 

U.S. Conference of Mayors 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

University of California (Los Angeles), 

Center for Public Health and Disasters 

University of California (Santa Cruz) 

University of Central Florida, Department 

of Chemistry 

University of Central Florida, Institute for 

Simulation and Training 

University of Colorado School of Dentistry 

University of Detroit, Mercy Institute for 

Advanced Continuing Dental Education 

University of Hawaii, Department of 

Anthropology 

University of Illinois, Anthropology 

Department 

University of Indianapolis, Biology 

Department 

University of New Mexico, Department of 

Anthropology 

University of New Mexico School of 

Medicine 

University of North Carolina, Department 

of Sociology/Anthropology 

University of North Dakota, Department of 

Anthropology 

University of North Florida, Institute of 

Police Technology and Management 

University of North Texas, Laboratory of 

Forensic Anthropology and Human 

Identification 

University of North Texas Police Academy 

University of South Alabama Medical 

Center, Department of Radiology 

University of South Carolina, Department 

of Anthropology 

University of Tennessee, Department of 

Anthropology 

University of Toronto, Forensic 

Science/Forensic Anthropology 

University of Washington, Radiology 

Department 

University of Wyoming, Department of 

Anthropology 

Utah Department of Public Safety 

Ventura County Coroner’s Office 

(California) 

Ventura County Sheriff’s Office of 

Emergency Services (California) 

Vermont Emergency Management 

Vermont Forensic Laboratory 

Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine 

(Australia) 

Virginia Dental Association 

78 
MASS FATALITY INCIDENTS: A GUIDE FOR HUMAN FORENSIC IDENTIFICATION 

Virginia Department of Emergency 

Management 

Virginia Institute of Forensic Science and 

Medicine 

Virginia Voluntary Organizations Active in 

Disasters 

Volusia County Fire Services (Deland, 

Florida) 

Wake County District Attorney’s Office 

(Raleigh, North Carolina) 

Washington Voluntary Organizations Active 

in Disasters 

Washoe County Sheriff’s Office (Reno, 

Nevada) 

Wayne County Medical Examiner’s Office 

(Detroit, Michigan) 

West Virginia Office of Emergency 

Services 

West Virginia Office of the Chief Medical 

Examiner Office (South Charleston, 

West Virginia) 

West Virginia University, Forensic 

Identification Program 

Western Michigan University, Department 

of Anthropology 

Wisconsin Association for Identification 

Wisconsin Emergency Management 

Wisconsin State Historical Society 

Wyoming Emergency Management 

Agency 

79 
About the National Institute of Justice 

NIJ is the research, development, and evaluation agency of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

The Institute provides objective, independent, evidence-based knowledge and tools to enhance 

the administration of justice and public safety. NIJ’s principal authorities are derived from the 

Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended (see 42 U.S.C. §§ 3721–3723). 

The NIJ Director is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The Director establishes the Institute’s objectives, guided by the priorities of the Office of Justice Programs, the 

U.S. Department of Justice, and the needs of the field. The Institute actively solicits the views of 

criminal justice and other professionals and researchers to inform its search for the knowledge 

and tools to guide policy and practice. 

Strategic Goals 

NIJ has seven strategic goals grouped into three categories: 

Creating relevant knowledge and tools 

1. Partner with State and local practitioners and policymakers to identify social science research 

and technology needs. 

2. Create scientific, relevant, and reliable knowledge—with a particular emphasis on terrorism, 

violent crime, drugs and crime, cost-effectiveness, and community-based efforts—to enhance 

the administration of justice and public safety. 

3. Develop affordable and effective tools and technologies to enhance the administration of 

justice and public safety. 

Dissemination 

4. Disseminate relevant knowledge and information to practitioners and policymakers in an 

understandable, timely, and concise manner. 

5. Act as an honest broker to identify the information, tools, and technologies that respond to 

the needs of stakeholders. 

Agency management 

6. Practice fairness and openness in the research and development process. 

7. Ensure professionalism, excellence, accountability, cost-effectiveness, and integrity in the 

management and conduct of NIJ activities and programs. 

Program Areas 

In addressing these strategic challenges, the Institute is involved in the following program areas: 

crime control and prevention, including policing; drugs and crime; justice systems and offender 

behavior, including corrections; violence and victimization; communications and information 

technologies; critical incident response; investigative and forensic sciences, including DNA; lessthan-lethal technologies; officer protection; education and training technologies; testing and 

standards; technology assistance to law enforcement and corrections agencies; field testing of 

promising programs; and international crime control. 

In addition to sponsoring research and development and technology assistance, NIJ evaluates 

programs, policies, and technologies. NIJ communicates its research and evaluation findings 

through conferences and print and electronic media. 

To find out more about the National 

Institute of Justice, please visit: 

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij 

or contact: 

National Criminal Justice 

Reference Service 

P.O. Box 6000

Rockville, MD 20849–6000 

800–851–3420 

e-mail: askncjrs@ncjrs.org 
JUNE 05

DOJ/NIJ *NCJ~199758* 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs 

National Institute of Justice 

Washington, DC 20531 

Official Business 

Penalty for Private Use $300 

NCJ 199758 

MAILING LABEL AREA (5” x 2”) 

DO NOT PRINT THIS AREA 

(INK NOR VARNISH) 

PRESORTED STANDARD 

POSTAGE & FEES PAID 

PERMIT NO. G–91