1887
Volume 15 Number 3
  • ISSN: 1569-4445
  • E-ISSN: 1873-0604

Abstract

ABSTRACT

A controlled three‐dimesional ground penetrating radar monitoring study over simulated clandestine graves was conducted near Pretoria, South Africa, in which the detectability of graves as a function of post‐burial interval was assessed, as this is of particular interest to local forensic investigators. It was demonstrated that the site‐specific environmental parameter (a clay‐rich loamy soil with poor drainage) and heavy seasonal rainfall (as confirmed by ground‐penetrating‐radar‐derived soil moisture estimates) drastically compromised the long‐term grave detectability, especially when adopting a three‐dimensional depth slice analysis approach. It is also seen that the disturbed burial zone is the major contributor to the total grave anomaly rather than the buried body due to the combination of environmental parameters and the absence of buried artefacts. This paper also advocates the combined use of different data representations (two‐dimensional and three‐dimensional) to increase the likelihood of detecting subtle grave anomalies.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2017007
2017-02-01
2024-03-29
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. AnnanA.P.1999. Practical processing of GPR data.Proceedings of the Second Government Workshop on Ground Penetrating Radar, Columbus, OH, October 1993. Sensors & Software Inc.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. BaroneP.M., SwangerK.J., Stanley‐PriceN. and ThursfieldA.2016. Finding graves in a cemetery: preliminary forensic GPR investigations in the Non‐Catholic Cemetery in Rome (Italy).Measurement80, 53–57.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Di MatteoA., PettinelliE. and SlobE.2013. Early‐time GPR signal attributes to estimate soil dielectric permittivity: a theoretical study.IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing51(3), 1643–1654.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. DoolittleJ.A. and BellantoniN.F.2010. The search for graves with ground‐penetrating radar in Connecticut.Journal of Archaeological Science37, 941–949.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. FerraraC., BaroneP.M., SteelmanC.M., PettinelliE. and EndresA.L.2013. Monitoring shallow soil water content under natural field conditions using the early‐time GPR signal technique.Vadose Zone Journal12(4), 1–9.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. FiedlerS., IllichB., BergerJ. and GrawM.2009. The effectiveness of ground‐penetrating radar surveys in the location of unmarked burial sites in modern cemeteries.Journal of Applied Geophysics68, 380–385.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. HansenJ.D., PringleJ.K. and GoodwinJ.2014. GPR and bulk ground resistivity surveys in graveyards: locating unmarked burials in contrasting soil types.Forensic Science International237, e14–e29.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. HuismanJ.A., HubbardS.S., RedmanJ.D. and AnnanA.P.2003. Measuring soil water content with ground penetrating radar: a review.Vadose Zone Journal2, 476–491.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. IAEA2008. Field Estimation of Soil Water Content: A Practical Guide to Methods, Instrumentation and Sensor Technology (PDF), Vienna, Austria:International Atomic Energy Agency, 2008, p. 131.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. MolinaC.M., PringleJ.K., SaumettM. and HernándezO.2015. Preliminary results of sequential monitoring of simulated clandestine graves in Colombia, South America, using ground penetrating radar and botany.Forensic Science International248, 61–70.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. NovoA., LorenzoH., RialF.I. and SollaM.2011. 3D GPR in forensics: finding a clandestine grave in a mountainous environment.Forensic Science International204, 134–138.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. PringleJ.K., JervisJ., CassellaJ.P. and CassidyN.J.2008. Time‐lapse geophysical investigations over a simulated urban clandestine grave.Journal of Forensic Science53, 1405–1416.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. PringleJ.K., RuffellA., JervisJ.R., DonnellyL., McKinleyJ., HansenJ. et al. 2012. The use of geoscience methods for terrestrial forensic searches.Earth‐Science Reviews114, 108–123.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. SalsarolaD., PoppaP., AmadasiA., MazzarelliD., GibelliD., ZanottiE. et al. 2015. The utility of ground‐penetrating radar and its time‐dependence in the discovery of clandestine burials.Forensic Science International253, 119–124.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. SchultzJ.J.2008. Sequential monitoring of burials containing small pig cadavers using ground penetrating radar.Journal of Forensic Science53, 279–287.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. SchultzJ.J.2012. The application of ground‐penetrating radar for forensic grave detection. In: A Companion to Forensic Anthropology (ed. D.Dirkmaat ). John Wiley & Sons.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. SchultzJ.J. and MartinM.M.2012. Monitoring controlled graves representing common burial scenarios with ground penetrating radar.Journal of Applied Geophysics83, 74–89.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. ToppG.C., DavisJ.L. and AnnanA.P.1980. Electromagnetic determination of soil water content: measurements in coaxial transmission lines.Water Resources Research16, 574–582.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Van DamR.L., AlgeoJ. and SlaterL.2016. The GPR early‐time method to measure water content of clay soils.VII Simpósio Brasileiro de Geofísica, 25–27 October 2016. Sociedade Brasileira de Geofísica.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. van SchoorM., NienaberW.C. and Marais‐WernerA.2015. A controlled monitoring study of simulated clandestine graves using 3D ground penetrating radar.Near Surface Geoscience 2015—21st European Meeting of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2017007
Loading
/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2017007
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article

Most Cited This Month Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error