Browsing by Author "Dharamdev, Kisharia"

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Open Access
    Are human identification methods effectively utilised? a retrospective review of unidentified remains between 2019-2020 at Salt River mortuary, Cape Town, South Africa
    (2025) Dharamdev, Kisharia; Heathfield, Laura
    Unidentified human remains (UHRs) are a global issue, particularly in developing nations. Various identification methods exist ranging from visual recognition to DNA profiling. While DNA is utilised at Salt River Mortuary (SRM), there is slow turnaround and seldom feedback from the state laboratory. Thus in 2020, SRM began submitting samples for DNA profiling to a private laboratory (Unistel) as well. It is currently unknown whether this agreement has improved identification outcomes. To address this, post-mortem records from 7672 cases admitted to SRM in 2019 and 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. Of those, 1101 cases (14.4%) had unconfirmed identities seven days after admission. Subsequently, 84.7% (n=933/1101) were identified using visual recognition (86.3%; n=805/933) with requests in fingerprint analysis (74.3%; n=693/933) and success rate of DNA profiling slightly higher in 2020 (45 %; n=117/260) compared to 2019 (42 %; n=120/286); with 15.3% (n=168/1101) of decedents remaining unidentified (UHRs). Of the 168 UHRs, DNA profiling was requested in 69% (n=116/168) and notably, 19% (n=32/168) had no identification attempts with stillbirth and non-viable cases accounting for 68.8% (n=22/32) of these. On average, DNA profiling was requested within 27 days of post-mortem in 2020. Retrospective DNA profiling of 2019 UHR cases (29.9%) was requested following the Unistel agreement. Where UHR DNA profiling was requested from Unistel, reports were obtained in 37.9% (n=44/116). However, DNA profiles from Unistel were not uploaded onto the National Forensic DNA Database of South Africa, which limits the value of DNA as an identification tool in cases without an alleged family member available for comparison. The remainder of cases were sent to the state laboratory (n=72/116), but only 8.3% (n=6/72) of reports were received. These findings indicate that using a private laboratory improved the success rate of DNA for identification at SRM, when kinship analysis was possible. Still, improved collaboration between private and state DNA laboratories is required to facilitate investigative leads using the DNA database.