The importance of “secondary methods” in the identification of the victims of the 3rd of October 2013 shipwreck

Abstract

In a mass disaster scenario, Interpol standards are usually followed, which describe identification methods as either primary (DNA, fingerprints and odontology) or secondary (personal descriptors, medical findings, etc.). Visual recognition has also been used as an identification method (e.g., after the Thailand tsunami disaster), despite it being considered unreliable. The Mediterranean shipwrecks present similarities with both open and closed disasters: when migrants decide to cross the Sea, they usually inform relatives about their departure (e.g., type of boat, date of departure); however, a list of passengers is obviously lacking. The collection of antemortem data for the victims is complex, both for the rather strained political situation of the countries of origin and the poverty of inhabitants. The lack of medical and dental radiographs or dental records and the complicated kinship relations (that makes it difficult to correctly identify close relatives) make it often impossible to use the traditional primary criteria. For this reason, the identification methods must be chosen case by case in order to allow an effective reconciliation in the identification process. The 3rd of October 2013 shipwreck with 366 recovered victims was one of the biggest disasters in the Mediterranean Sea. The University of Milan [in particular the Laboratory of Forensic Anthropology and Odontology (LABANOF)] was designated for the identification of the victims of this shipwreck. The Disaster Victim Identification (DVI) team of the Italian Police in Rome (Italy) conducted the external examinations of all the bodies, because full autopsies had not been requested by the Prosecutor's Office. Descriptions of characteristics and marks of the cadaver, clothes and personal items were collected in a form; photographic documentation and biological samples for DNA analysis were taken. The antemortem documentation was collected after one year thanks to the calls sent through Europe by the Office of the Extraordinary Commissioner for Missing Persons through interviews, which were held in Rome and Milan, where a “missing person's form”, photographic/video material (also collected with the help of social networks such as Facebook) and a saliva swab were taken from the relatives. A total of 47 antemortem files were opened. Given the paucity of data, the identification process revealed anthropological and odontological methods (medical description and photo comparison of some features such as details in the dentition, naevi, ear shape, tattoos, scars) to be very useful. To date, these methods achieved 13 positive identifications (27.7%) and 11 probable matches, six of which were confirmed by the DNA analysis. In the present scenario where there is the need to identify deceased migrants with poor antemortem data, “secondary” methods as well as a combination of traditional primary and secondary methods have proven fundamental.