Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Today

Talk With Forensic Anthropologist

Aired October 04, 2002 - 11:31   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


LEON HARRIS, CNN ANCHOR: Authorities in Maryland are sorting through whatever forensic evidence they have found at the scene of each of these killings, and joining us now from Montreal is Kathy Reichs. She's one of 50 board-certified forensic anthropologists, as well as the author of the book "Grave Secrets." Kathy joins us, as we said, from Montreal this morning.
Glad you could take some time to talk with us today. We had originally booked you, Kathy, as you may know, to talk about another case that's actually in Virginia and North Carolina, the case of that corpse, or actually the skeleton that was found, or parts of the skeleton found, officials believe could be that of Jennifer Short. We want to talk about this in just a bit.

But this breaking news out of Montgomery County, I want to talk about that, too. What would a forensics expert like yourself be looking at in a case like this?

KATHY REICHS, AUTHOR, "GRAVE SECRETS": Well actually, a forensic anthropologist probably wouldn't be called into a case like this. This is a perfect example, the two cases you've mentioned, the skeletal remains were found in North Carolina versus the victims in Maryland. The victims in Maryland are very freshly dead. Therefore, they would go for regular autopsy by a pathologist. The pathologist would be a normal autopsy and look at things like bullet trajectory and any information they could get from the soft tissue to tell them exactly what took place.

HARRIS: And that's the advantage of an anthropologist coming in years later OR months or so later wouldn't have?

REICHS: Exactly, the kind of case that the anthropologist would work on would be the other one mentioned, the remains in North Carolina, where you've just bones or a very badly decomposed body, and therefore, you have to use a knowledge of the skeleton in order to answer the question, who is it, which is critical in that case, of course -- is it this little girl that has gone missing? And also the question about what happened to this little girl, looking at trauma in the bones, and looking at patterns of, has something taken place after she was dead. Was there a dismemberment? Are they any cut marks or saw marks or anything you can say based on the bone.

HARRIS: And the bones are telling us a bit of a story on these remains found in North Carolina. As I understand it, there is some evidence of a bullet wound to the head in this case?

REICHS: I can't comment specifically, because I haven't seen the remains, but ideally, in most of the cases which I work, that would go to a board-certified forensic anthropologist, because they are specialized in looking at bones, looking at fracture patterns, looking at bullet entrances and exits, and trying to reconstruct exactly what took place.

HARRIS: Let's turn to this case then, this case of Jennifer Short, and we should say, in caution, before we continue, that it has not been determined that these remains that were found in Stoneville, North Carolina are those of Jennifer.

However, there are similarities that have piqued the interest those who are investigating this case. They have said, Kathy, they determine that this was the body, or these are the remains of a 9- year-old girl. How can you be so certain if all you have is a collection of bones, and how can you pin it down to that specific year?

REICHS: Age is not a difficult question, particularly with a child. A child is still growing and developing, and you can look at the bones are not complete yet. They're not -- all of the pieces of the bones aren't stuck together yet. The teeth aren't finished yet. The teeth roots haven't finished completing their development yet. So you can be precise with age. You can also be pretty precise with racial background, looking at various characteristics, and particularly the skull in the facial region to determine the ancestry of an individual.

With a child, it would be very difficult to determine gender, because all of those changes that take place in the skeleton, that distinguish a male from a female, aren't finished yet. They're not done until puberty. So I would be very surprised if someone is making a statement about the gender of this skeleton, but that's exactly what you bring in a board-certified anthropologist to work on these kinds of cases. They can look at remains and give you a good profile.

HARRIS: I'm sorry to cut you off like that, but we're just running short on time here, and I want to get a couple more questions in. I can see how if you had an adult set of remains, where you could determine race by looking at certain measurements of the facial bone structure, but won't the youth be considered the same thing?

REICHS: You see the bones are not fully developed, because it is a child you will look at gross differences in the shape of various characteristics of the face and skull. You can also take measurements, particularly with adult individuals, and anthropologists have access to a national database, where we can compare to our particular configuration of measurements to individuals of known racial background, so can you do a statistical analysis as well.

HARRIS: Got you. I understand.

Now the analysis of skulls in this case, if you were working in a case this and you didn't have the skull, and you know, they're still talking about trying to drag this pond there to see if they can find any more bone pieces, or fragments whatever, to give us some more information, is there any one particular part of the skeleton that can give you the maximum amount information aside from the skull here. If there was one piece you had to have, what would it be?

REICHS: Yes, and I've often had the problem in case. It's different, depending which question you are looking at. The answer is yes. If you are looking at race, the skull area is more useful. If you are looking at gender, for an adult, then the pelvis is probably more useful. If you're looking at a child, then maybe the ends of the long bones are more useful, because you've got developmental features in those areas.

HARRIS: You've got some fascinating work that you do, and I'm -- and some of us are just absolutely amazed that you can actually get up every day and go to work and do that.

REICHS: You can also get information on the medical history. I would hope a board certified dentist is going to be called in on this case as well. It's important to use the proper specialists.

HARRIS: In this, case since they got the skull that would pay off in terms of giving us more information.

Kathy Reichs, thank you very much for the time and the expertise this morning. We sure appreciate it.

REICHS: Thank you.

HARRIS: Take care.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com







Aired October 4, 2002 - 11:31   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
LEON HARRIS, CNN ANCHOR: Authorities in Maryland are sorting through whatever forensic evidence they have found at the scene of each of these killings, and joining us now from Montreal is Kathy Reichs. She's one of 50 board-certified forensic anthropologists, as well as the author of the book "Grave Secrets." Kathy joins us, as we said, from Montreal this morning.
Glad you could take some time to talk with us today. We had originally booked you, Kathy, as you may know, to talk about another case that's actually in Virginia and North Carolina, the case of that corpse, or actually the skeleton that was found, or parts of the skeleton found, officials believe could be that of Jennifer Short. We want to talk about this in just a bit.

But this breaking news out of Montgomery County, I want to talk about that, too. What would a forensics expert like yourself be looking at in a case like this?

KATHY REICHS, AUTHOR, "GRAVE SECRETS": Well actually, a forensic anthropologist probably wouldn't be called into a case like this. This is a perfect example, the two cases you've mentioned, the skeletal remains were found in North Carolina versus the victims in Maryland. The victims in Maryland are very freshly dead. Therefore, they would go for regular autopsy by a pathologist. The pathologist would be a normal autopsy and look at things like bullet trajectory and any information they could get from the soft tissue to tell them exactly what took place.

HARRIS: And that's the advantage of an anthropologist coming in years later OR months or so later wouldn't have?

REICHS: Exactly, the kind of case that the anthropologist would work on would be the other one mentioned, the remains in North Carolina, where you've just bones or a very badly decomposed body, and therefore, you have to use a knowledge of the skeleton in order to answer the question, who is it, which is critical in that case, of course -- is it this little girl that has gone missing? And also the question about what happened to this little girl, looking at trauma in the bones, and looking at patterns of, has something taken place after she was dead. Was there a dismemberment? Are they any cut marks or saw marks or anything you can say based on the bone.

HARRIS: And the bones are telling us a bit of a story on these remains found in North Carolina. As I understand it, there is some evidence of a bullet wound to the head in this case?

REICHS: I can't comment specifically, because I haven't seen the remains, but ideally, in most of the cases which I work, that would go to a board-certified forensic anthropologist, because they are specialized in looking at bones, looking at fracture patterns, looking at bullet entrances and exits, and trying to reconstruct exactly what took place.

HARRIS: Let's turn to this case then, this case of Jennifer Short, and we should say, in caution, before we continue, that it has not been determined that these remains that were found in Stoneville, North Carolina are those of Jennifer.

However, there are similarities that have piqued the interest those who are investigating this case. They have said, Kathy, they determine that this was the body, or these are the remains of a 9- year-old girl. How can you be so certain if all you have is a collection of bones, and how can you pin it down to that specific year?

REICHS: Age is not a difficult question, particularly with a child. A child is still growing and developing, and you can look at the bones are not complete yet. They're not -- all of the pieces of the bones aren't stuck together yet. The teeth aren't finished yet. The teeth roots haven't finished completing their development yet. So you can be precise with age. You can also be pretty precise with racial background, looking at various characteristics, and particularly the skull in the facial region to determine the ancestry of an individual.

With a child, it would be very difficult to determine gender, because all of those changes that take place in the skeleton, that distinguish a male from a female, aren't finished yet. They're not done until puberty. So I would be very surprised if someone is making a statement about the gender of this skeleton, but that's exactly what you bring in a board-certified anthropologist to work on these kinds of cases. They can look at remains and give you a good profile.

HARRIS: I'm sorry to cut you off like that, but we're just running short on time here, and I want to get a couple more questions in. I can see how if you had an adult set of remains, where you could determine race by looking at certain measurements of the facial bone structure, but won't the youth be considered the same thing?

REICHS: You see the bones are not fully developed, because it is a child you will look at gross differences in the shape of various characteristics of the face and skull. You can also take measurements, particularly with adult individuals, and anthropologists have access to a national database, where we can compare to our particular configuration of measurements to individuals of known racial background, so can you do a statistical analysis as well.

HARRIS: Got you. I understand.

Now the analysis of skulls in this case, if you were working in a case this and you didn't have the skull, and you know, they're still talking about trying to drag this pond there to see if they can find any more bone pieces, or fragments whatever, to give us some more information, is there any one particular part of the skeleton that can give you the maximum amount information aside from the skull here. If there was one piece you had to have, what would it be?

REICHS: Yes, and I've often had the problem in case. It's different, depending which question you are looking at. The answer is yes. If you are looking at race, the skull area is more useful. If you are looking at gender, for an adult, then the pelvis is probably more useful. If you're looking at a child, then maybe the ends of the long bones are more useful, because you've got developmental features in those areas.

HARRIS: You've got some fascinating work that you do, and I'm -- and some of us are just absolutely amazed that you can actually get up every day and go to work and do that.

REICHS: You can also get information on the medical history. I would hope a board certified dentist is going to be called in on this case as well. It's important to use the proper specialists.

HARRIS: In this, case since they got the skull that would pay off in terms of giving us more information.

Kathy Reichs, thank you very much for the time and the expertise this morning. We sure appreciate it.

REICHS: Thank you.

HARRIS: Take care.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com