Premium
Geophysical Monitoring of Simulated Clandestine Graves Using Electrical and Ground‐Penetrating Radar Methods: 0–3 Years After Burial * ,†
Author(s) -
Pringle Jamie K.,
Jervis John R.,
Hansen James D.,
Jones Glenda M.,
Cassidy Nigel J.,
Cassella John P.
Publication year - 2012
Publication title -
journal of forensic sciences
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.715
H-Index - 96
eISSN - 1556-4029
pISSN - 0022-1198
DOI - 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2012.02151.x
Subject(s) - ground penetrating radar , electrical resistivity and conductivity , geology , electrical resistivity tomography , soil water , radar , geophysics , mineralogy , hydrology (agriculture) , soil science , geotechnical engineering , physics , engineering , telecommunications , quantum mechanics
This study provides forensic search teams with systematic geophysical monitoring data over simulated clandestine graves for comparison to active cases. Simulated “wrapped” and “naked” burials were created. Multigeophysical surveys were collected over a 3‐year monitoring period. Bulk ground resistivity, electrical resistivity imaging, multifrequency ground‐penetrating radar (GPR), and grave and background “soil‐water” conductivity data were collected. Resistivity surveys revealed the naked burial had consistently low‐resistivity anomalies, whereas the wrapped burial had small, varying high‐resistivity anomalies. GPR 110‐ to 900‐MHz frequency surveys showed the wrapped burial could be detected throughout, with the “naked” burial mostly resolved. Two hundred and twenty‐five megahertz frequency GPR data were optimal. “Soil‐water” analyses showed rapidly increasing (year 1), slowly increasing (year 2), and decreasing (year 3) conductivity values. Results suggest resistivity and GPR surveys should be collected if target “wrapping” is unknown, with winter to spring surveys optimal. Resistivity surveys should be collected in clay‐rich soils.