Comparative Analysis of Determination of the Human Genealogy Based on the Base of the Head in Jurisdictional Criminalism
Human Genealogy of the Head in Jurisdictional Criminalism
Background: Scientific works on the determination of somatic sex on the basis of the skull, conducted and published in our country and abroad, are analyzed and presented. In the process of cranioscopic research, craniometric and cranioscopic approaches and the existing traditional and modern methods used for their implementation were considered. In the process of studying the head, work is carried out to determine the somatic sex. This is one of the most important issues in forensic science, anthropological and archaeological research, the scientific study of general problems of human variability. Subjects and Methods: The study was conducted on the basis of MSKT imaging of the skull of 27 male and 20 female volunteers who had no congenital or acquired defects in the skull of an adult (over 18 years of age). The resulting images were examined by cranioscopic and craniometric methods using the IMA program. In cranioscopic studies, W.M. Krogman, G.Acsadi, J. Nemeskeri, and V.N. The advantages and disadvantages of Zvyagin methods are revealed. A. I. According to R. Martin and H. Welcker, who performed the craniometric method on the craniometric method of Bogdanov and a number of English craniologists, a comparative comparative analysis of the study was given in the modification. Results and Discussion: The authors note that the Center for Forensic Medicine has developed a craniological blank containing 79 types of head sizes. With this, it is possible to determine not only the sexual orientation of the head, but also the estimated age of the person. Conclusion: In conducting craniometric examinations in forensic practice. N. Zvyagin’s modification, which included 40 registered diagnostic signs described and registered, was further informative. Its efficiency was 93.5%.
Fisher RA. ”The Coefficient of Racial Likeness” and the Future of Craniometry. JRAI. 1936;66:57–63.
Smoker WR. Craniovertebral junction: normal anatomy, craniometry, and congenital anomalies. Radiographics. 1994;14(2):255–277. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1148/radiographics.14.2.8190952.
Oyen OJ, Walker A. Stereometric craniometry. Am J Phys Anthropol. 1977;46(1):177–182. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.1330460123.
Botelho RV, Ferreira EDZ. Angular craniometry in cranio- cervical junction malformation. Neurosurg Rev. 2013;36(4):1. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10143-013-0471-0.
Zamanzadeh V, Ghahramanian A, Rassouli M, Abbaszadeh A, Alavi-Majd H, Nikanfar AR. Design and Implementation Content Validity Study: Development of an instrument for measuring Patient-Centered Communication. J Caring Sci. 2015;4(2):165–178. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.15171/jcs.2015.017.
Noble D. Three Lectures on the Correlation of Psychology and Physiology . Assoc Med J. 1854;2(81):642–646.
Bastos ML, Tavaziva G, Abidi SK, Campbell JR, Haraoui LP, Johnston JC, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of serological tests for covid-19: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2020;370:2516. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m2516.
Nei M. Evolution of human races at the gene level. Prog Clin Biol Res. 1982;103:167–181.
Sangvichien S. Accuracy of cranial and mandible morphologi- cal traits for sex determination in Thais. Siriraj Medical Journal. 2008;60:240–243.
Wiercińska A. Multiple stochastic correlations among some cranioscopic traits. Int J anthropol. 1986;1(3):277–280.
Guarnera LA, Murrie DC, Boccaccini MT. Why do forensic experts disagree? Sources of unreliability and bias in forensic psychology evaluations. Transl Issues Psychol Sci. 2017;3(2):143–152. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/tps0000114.
Liumbruno GM, Velati C, Pasqualetti P, Franchini M. How to write a scientific manuscript for publication. Blood Transfus. 2013;11(2):217–226. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.2450/2012.0247-12.
Neal T. Forensic psychology and correctional psychology: Distinct but related subfields of psychological science and practice. Am Psychol. 2018;73(5):651–662. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000227.
Boer HHD, Obertová Z, Cunha E, Adalian P, Baccino E, Fracasso T, et al. Strengthening the role of forensic anthropology in personal identification: Position statement by the Board of the Forensic Anthropology Society of Europe (FASE). Forensic Sci Int. 2020;315:110456. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2020.110456.
Wescott DJ. Recent advances in forensic anthropology: decomposition research. Forensic Sci Int. 2018;3(4):278–293. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/20961790.2018.1488571.
Copyright (c) 2021 Author
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.