5. Conclusions
In terms of distinguishing patterns of case recovery locations for decedent’s analyzed by the CAPHIL, GIS has proved itself to be a powerful tool. In the cases of the CAPHIL case recovery locations, GIS analysis suggests that the CAPHIL cases are most likely to arrive from urban areas of low population density with a PRI of under 25,000 and a medium to low murder rate. However, it is best to exercise caution when relying on the results of GIS due to the fact that many of the cases recovered by the CAPHIL over this five year period could not be georeferenced due to their extreme isolation and/or vague record keeping. In order to increase accuracy and better understand case recovery location patterning and recovery bias, it would be wise to encourage forensic anthropologists to ask for more precise locations for the recovery of human remains. Forensic personnel can urge law enforcement to retain either physical addresses or GPS coordinates of the recovery location of the deceased. GPS coordinates could be taken simply by dropping a pin on a computerized map with a cell phone. Though not as accurate as using a GPS device, these GPS pinned locations would require very little effort and expense on the part of law enforcement personnel and would provide a location that could be cross-referenced with physical and cultural landscape data, which would aid forensic anthropologists in their assessment of how demographics and geography influence the locations where the human remains they analyze are recovered.
