Planning the Archaeological Recovery of Evidence from Recent Mass Serious
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Forensic Science International, 34 (1987) 267-287 267 Elsevier Scientific Publishers Ireland Ltd. PLANNING THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECOVERY OF EVIDENCE FROM RECENT MASS GRAVES MARK SKINNER Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, V5A IS6 (Canada) (Received August 18th, 1986) (Accepted April 7th, 1997) Summary Mass graves commonly contain hundreds of putrefying bodies, which bear evidence of torture and extrajudicial execution. These require careful excavation using archaeological techniques to recover the bodies for identification and to obtain associated evidence which document human rights abuses. In order to derive forensically defensible conclusions, exhumation of a mass grave may take weeks or months. Specialized protective suits and breathing apparatus will permit the investigating team to take the time required to retrieve even subtle evidence from repellant remains. Strategies for sampling tissues and bodies which reduce the magnitude of the recovery operation are described. Key words: Mass graves; Torture; Forensic archaeology; Protective suits Introduction Techniques for controlled recovery of forensic evidence from a mass grave are described in this paper. Accumulations of bodies have occurred through (a) volcanic mudflows as in Columbia recently where 23 606 perished [l], (b) col- lapse of apartment buildings, as in the Mexican earthquake [2], (c) serial murders [3] and (d) deliberate inhumation of victims of extrajudicial torture and execution [4]. According to one recent report on actions by the previous military government of Argentina, “Government authorities have discovered mass graves in cemeteries all over the capital (Buenos Aires), and in Cordoba Province diggers uncovered the remains of 706 corpses” [4]. In one northern suburb, 300 more corpses were found in 1 week. The scale of human dying can be overwhelming, as in the “killing fields” of Kampuchea [5,6]. Is there a point where the “illegal disposal of the dead” [7] must be left uninvestigated? Apparent reluctance to apply controlled recovery techniques to mass graves seems to prevail. The biggest obstacle perhaps is the potentially appalling state of the remains; who is prepared to climb into a mass grave time after time to make the necessarily acute forensic observations of, for example, whether a 0379-0738/87/$03.50 0 1987 Elsevier Scientific Publishers Ireland Ltd. Printed and Published in Ireland rotting cloth remnant is a blindfold, a ligature round the neck or just a neck- erchief? The homicide in Texas of many young boys by Dean Allen Corll is typical of various pressures that develop in a mass grave situation: Because of tremendous public interest and curiousity, large crowds accumulated, including television and press personnel. Since security became a major problem, the police used this as an excuse to remove the bodies as quickly as possible-so care was sacrificed for haste. No archaeologists were consulted and no archaeological techniques were used. At first, convict volunteers were employed in the digging. Since many became ill on account of the odor, a back hoe was used and later a bulldozer [8:324]. There is only one (unpublished) account of careful investigation of a mass grave situation: George Fully’s 1955 Doctoral dissertation entitled (in transla- tion): “The identification of the skeletons of the dead deportees in the German concentration camps”. He emphasized the need for archaeological techniques to recover the bodies [ 91. The purpose of this paper is to anticipate the specific problem of recognizing and collecting forensic evidence from a mass of actively decomposing bodies. Emphasis is placed on victims of state torture and secret disposal. The nature of forensic evidence encountered in a mass grave, particularly where torture may be suspected, is discussed in light of time constraints. An organizational framework is provided with summaries of equipment, personnel and proce- dures. The specific contribution that archaeological recovery techniques can make is described with modifications of “dry bones” archaeological methods for meticulous exposing and making observations in situ of decomposing bod- ies. Lastly, sampling strategies for tissues and bodies that help limit the recov- ery problem to manageable proportions are considered. Those authorities are addressed whose cooperation is required to ensure proper recovery of the bodies with associated forensic evidence, and archaeologists asked to partici- pate as forensic investigators. It is proposed that, instead of despairing that a mass grave is too big, smells too bad and takes too long to deal with, we should develop procedures that will work. Mass Graves, Physical Evidence and Torture A mass grave contains at least half a dozen individuals. Unlike a multiple burial, a mass grave contains bodies that usually have been placed indiscrim- inately and tightly together with no reverence for the individual. Related methods of disposing of awkward dead are “body dumps” (James Welsh, pers. comm.) and the “secret cemetery” [lo]. A mass grave may contain as many as 700 bodies and mass graves themselves may- be numerous [4,6]. Snow has described the typical mass grave as being in a remote location to which the victims were brought alive and executed with attempts to make identification of the body and grave site impossible [ 111.Charles Warren is a physical anthro- pologist experienced with processing large numbers of bodies from the field. Some American and allied military personnel killed in major engagements in 269 the Philippines during World War II were buried by Japanese in unmarked trenches excavated by bulldozer [12]. Warren describes one of several brick and clay mounds inside the walls of the Citadel of Hue City in Vietnam which contained seven incomplete skeletons [13]. He remarks that physical anthro- pologists employed in military identification laboratories where large numbers of war dead are processed have written little about their experiences [14]. In 1985, forensic scientists sponsored by the AAAS Committee on Scientific Free- dom and Responsibility directed a 5 week workshop in Argentina on the iden- tification of human skeletal remains; in response to the belief that most of 9000 “desaparicidos” were buried in mass graves [4,15]. Four fundamental varieties of physical evidence can be obtained from a mass grave. The first two of these - evidence of identity and when death occurred - are familiar if difficult questions to the death investigator. The other two - evidence of premortem, perhaps prolonged suffering, and cause, manner and mode of death revealed by perimortem traumata - assume a new significance in torture victims interred in a mass grave. The archaeologist, and those involving him at the grave site, must acknowl- edge that his methods and observations form an integral preliminary to a complete autopsy which will in great part determine the forensic resolution of the case. The role of the forensic archaeologist should be viewed, not as a useful but inessential service forensically less significant than the patholo- gist’s well-respected contribution, but as part of a coordinated team approach to complex crime scene investigation. There is a growing mystique about our ability to identify large numbers of people from mass disasters. Certainly in air disasters with a closed population -. crew and passenger list - and victims from social classes most of whom see dentists fairly regularly, many if not all get identified due to the dedicated efforts of forensic odontologists [17,18]. With mass graves it will be more difficult to obtain identifications. Charney and Wilber observe that in the Big Thompson flood, 65% of the identifications were made from physical features like ear shape, hammertoes, and fractures, rather than dental records [19]. They go on to note that perhaps only 40% of the American public see a dentist. In Third World countries, the proportion will be much less. Therefore, in obtaining identifications from mass graves, we cannot place our faith on re- secting jaws and discarding the noisome rest. The entire body will have to be scrutinized and recovered where possible. According to Amnesty International more than a third of the world’s gov- ernments during the 1980s used or tolerated torture or ill-treatment of prison- ers [lo]. For example, the Buenos Aires Bar Association of Argentina has stated (1982) that “The existence of torture as a system of police investigation is a notorious and indisputable fact” [ 10:144]. Torture is the infliction of men- tal and/or physical suffering for the benefit of the operator or an authority for whom he acts [ 161.Torture of the mind and torture techniques that leave little effect on the body will be difficult or impossible to demonstrate. “There is no test that is so specifiic as to determine positively that a given mark or symptom is the result of a particular act of torture” [10:92]. Because the body tends to heal itself, the profound behavioral and neurological disorders attendant upon torture cannot easily be “proven” to have been caused from torture. This is why dead bodies are so important forensically. Prior to severe decomposition, the soft tissues can preserve mute testimony to torture so severe as to lead to death. Even in advanced decomposition, there may be hard tissue evidence, such as fractures and objects with the bodies, which strongly suggest torture was inflicted before death. The distinction to be drawn between premortem and perimortem trauma (that