Is FARO’s ScanArm the future of forensic 3D imaging?

overview-gallery-scanarm-hd-1

FARO.com

FARO is the leading brand in 3D measurement technology used in factory work, public safety and now forensic anthropology. The FARO® Forensic ScanArm solution was designed specifically for criminal investigations.

When used with 3D Systems Geomagic® software, the ScanArm allows scientists a noncontact way to scan items of forensic interest in high resolution. It is armed with blue laser technology, which boasts noise-free scanning in high detail at high speeds.

According to the website, it is easily portable. So, it isn’t just some piece of expensive sitting equipment. Theoretically, you could get the scan done before you even take the remains or whatever items to the laboratory.

Despite those claims, it might not be the ideal field equipment the company hoped it would be:

However, this doesn’t take away from all the good things about the equipment.

The interface is designed so that people without 3D imaging experience should be able to navigate it. With 3D imaging being a newer discipline and with its rapid technological advancement, this is important. One day, scientists will probably be able to use 3D scanning devices as easily as they can use a laptop. For now, the transition is still underway, and easy-to-use interfaces will be very helpful for both the people making the scans and the ones making the scanners.

We talked about 3D copies of skulls for facial recognition in another post. The ScanArm bears the same significance as it means to enable scientists to make these copies with the newest technology and be able to work with sturdy evidence. That is, to make identifications without damaging fragile human remains or other evidence.

“By listening to our rapidly growing base of Public Safety – Forensics customers, we have learned that thoroughly measuring and analyzing forensic evidence is of paramount importance. Our non-contact measurement tools allow forensic labs to meet this requirement while minimizing the risk of damaging the evidence. It is now possible to produce accurate and permanent 3D digital documentation of evidence from which measurements can be taken and analysis can be performed days or even decades later…” –Joe Arezone, Chief Commercial Officer of FARO

The key here is “noncontact.” According to this statement, it is no longer necessary to handle the remains or risk damaging them. Further, there are no sprays necessary for the laser to scan, so there is no apparent risk for contamination.

The ScanArm isn’t only to aid forensic anthropologists, however. It is designed for crime labs to create a digital archive of evidence to store for years to come as well as to use in court presentations. Medical examiners can use the ScanArm to digitally collect traumatic injuries quickly.

faro-scanarm-v3

FARO.com

Another key is the speed with which these operations can be handled. Officials desire forensic investigations to be handled with care, but mostly with speed. And it is even worse when forensic anthropology and archaeology is a component of the investigation. It is hard work. If the ScanArm hopes to be successful, it will need to do the work accurately without taking away time from an already quickly ticking clock.

I can’t wait to see how else scientists will think to use the ScanArm and if it will live up to the high claims made by FARO.

Click here to learn more about the ScanArm and to schedule a personalized web demonstration.

demo request.png

FARO.com

 

Advertisements
Standard

What’s new in facial reconstruction?

At times, forensic investigators have a hard enough time identifying human remains with most of the flesh present. So what happens when the body is mostly or fully skeletonized?

A forensic artist uses the skull and scientific parameters to reconstruct the face of the individual. This is used to compare with missing persons and try to identify them. Since the discipline began, drawings and models using the skull have been used in the process, and there are problems with these practices.

The biggest problem is the subjectivity of the forensic artists, which can also lead to unidentified individuals never being identified because some features can’t be measured osteologically.

Gail_Mathews

A facial reconstruction of Gail Matthews, a victim of the Green River Killer. Her lips were unique and unable to be properly estimated due to decomposition.

3D printing is transforming forensic science and biological anthropology and for the better. Scientists use CT and MRI scans as well as other medical imaging techniques. Using this data, they are able to produce 3D models of bones from a 3D printer. The anatomically correct models are able to show trauma on the bones.

Skeletal remains are not usually entered into evidence in a court of law because it is thought to be too disturbing. These models eliminate the traumatic experience of seeing the dead person’s actual remains. To handle bones in the courtroom can cause degradation to them, destroying evidence. With 3D printing, this doesn’t happen.

This new technology is still being developed and perfected by scientists every day. The future will see increasing applications of forensically applied medical procedures. These applications will become standardized and more accurate over time, eliminating most of the subjectivity that compromises some cases.

 

Standard

Texas Case Update: Catching up with investigators

Last week, we heard about the set of mystery remains that were found in a field in Texas in March. I had a chance to catch up with officials on the case to talk about how a real investigation is conducted and clarify some inconsistent news reports about the case.

“Please understand why law enforcement is sometimes reluctant to work with the media,” McBride said. “The frustrating part of using the media is that sometimes they don’t report what we give them accurately. In any (media) report, there is usually something that is inaccurate, lost in translation or just sounds better to the reporter, but has lost context because it was changed. I know it’s not done with malicious intent, but this is the result.”

KSAT Antonio reported a range of heights for the individual and The Seguin Gazette reported an exact height of 5’2”. Those sources also had inconsistent information about the amount of time the individual has been in the field, which is less than two years and more than one month. These inconsistencies were mostly due to the change of information as it became available.

Investigator Sgt. Zachary McBride of the Guadalupe County Sheriff’s Department confirmed that the woman’s height is estimated to be between 5’0” and 5’6”, while the preliminary report’s minimum height was 4’11”. Five-foot-two inches is the middle data point for the height range.

Before the height was ever determined, however, a lot went into the location of the skeleton.

“While the majority of the bones were spread over the field due to plowing activity, the skull was found mostly intact with only the left part of the maxilla missing,” McBride said. “This was recovered a week later and fit perfectly into the missing part of the skull.”

The department, through the Texas Rangers, will use a 3-D printed copy of the skull in order to reconstruct the face of this unidentified female. An artist from the Department of Public Safety will undertake the task of reconstructing the face.

In addition to the identification of the remains, the department is tasked with compiling evidence and admissible witness and suspect statements.

“We have recovered all the evidence we can locate,” McBride said. “There are no known witnesses (the neighboring areas have been canvassed) and of course no known suspect. The investigation can really only begin once we know our victim’s identity and use a time line from when she was last seen to build the investigation from that point.”

Original Source

Sgt. McBride is working with Dr. Daniel Wescott at the Forensic Anthropology Center at Texas State University.

Dr. Wescott and the other investigators had to search for and map evidence, transport the remains to the laboratory and do a full work-up. This means they conducted a biological profile (sex, ancestry, age, etc.), documented dentition and examined the bones for trauma and taphonomic damage, which includes preservation and signs animal scavenging. This information was entered into the National Missing and Unidentified Persons System, or NamUs database. Lastly, DNA samples were sent to be analyzed in hopes of getting a match.

The role of the forensic scientist isn’t complete at this point.

“We also will aid law enforcement in the exclusion of individuals or the positive identification of the person,” Wescott said.

When asked about the possibility the remains belonged to an undocumented individual, whether there was clothing or other effects found in the field, and what the cause of death was, officials refrained from answering – and for good reason.

“The answer to those questions are controlled information that we would use to test the truthfulness of a witness or suspect if we ever interview them,” McBride said. “I have experienced cases where witnesses will intentionally lie or just misremember details. I have had suspects give ‘false confessions,’ for whatever reason. If the witness or suspect is able to correctly answer these questions you are asking without the answer being in the public domain, it lends credibility to their statement.”

For this reason, there is information for cases like these that is limited to the investigators and involved parties. Some leads were ruled out using dental records against local missing persons. This ongoing investigation will continue to pursue local missing persons.

“In the end, it will be DNA and/or dental records that identify our victim,” McBride said.

Standard

The Homo way to mourn?

Last fall, a team of mostly women scientists led by Lee Berger announced its discovery of a new hominin species in a South African cave: Homo naledi.

More than 1500 bones were found in the cave, representing at least 15 individuals. There were fossils ranging from infants to elders. The average H. naledi stood at five feet tall, weighing about 100 pounds. They had a skull less than half the size of ours, suggesting a brain the size of an orange, which sat atop a proportionally larger, slender body, showing signs of both australopith and early Homo traits.

All of the bones were found in the same chamber, and seemed to have been deposited there on purpose, over time.

What does this mean for us?

Ritualized burial of the dead may not have been limited to modern humans. This feature, which was previously thought to be strictly a practice of Homo sapiens, may in fact be something that has developed starting much earlier in our evolution. If indeed H. naledi were relocating the dead as a way of mourning, it is evidence that this species is, according to Berger, “an animal that appears to have had the cognitive ability to recognize its separation from nature.”

Some experts in the field think it is more likely that modern humans killed H. naledi and stashed them in the Dinaledi Chamber of the Rising Star Cave themselves. But, as Dr. Rosemary Joyce points out, Chimpanzees show grief for the dead – why is it so hard to imagine a species in our own genus to take that instinct a step further?

So far, the species’ DNA has not been tested nor have the bones been dated. These are important steps in understanding H. naledi’s relation to us biologically and through time.

Another important take-away from this discovery is us modern humans don’t actually know very much at all about our world. This huge find was an accident, and its implications show how limited our understanding is.

There’s so much more to discover out there – accidents like H. naledi that could unlock mysteries of human evolution. All we have to do is look.

Further reading/viewing:

Watch the 2-hour PBS special, “Dawn of Humanity.”

“Homo naledi, a new species of the genus Homo from the Dinaledi Chamber, South Africa” (2015)

“Geological and taphonomic context for the new hominin species Homo naledi from the Dinaledi Chamber, South Africa” (2015)

 

Standard

Why You Shouldn’t Take Jesus’s Real Face Seriously

 

In the Christian-American culture, Jesus is depicted as a blue-eyed white man with long light brown hair. Many have argued that, based on the region of Galilee in which he lived, he would have darker skin and brown features.

While that is true, the facial reconstruction retired medical artist Richard Neave created of “Jesus” is exactly that: a creation. Neave’s reconstruction was based on three skulls found in Galilee. None of these skulls were actually Jesus.

Forensic facial reconstruction of an individual based on that individual’s complete skull is flawed as it is. The discipline is subjective and relies on artistic skill. While there has been some success in missing persons cases and the like, there have also been cases where the facial reconstruction significantly damaged the chances of identifying an individual – and that is with the direct use of modern remains.

Without the remains of the individual, Jesus’s name should have never been attached to Neave’s drawing of what is basically an ancient hybrid in this way. This reconstruction was completed in 2002, yet every year around Christmas, it is still being thrown into the spotlight with headlines like, “Science says this is Jesus’s real face.” And people believe it!

This is not to say Neave’s work is complete poppycock. It is the closest representation of what a man during Jesus’ time and in his region would look like. It’s just not Jesus.

Standard