DNA Identification of 9/11 Mass Fatality Victims

Introduction

"DNA analysis has a number of advantages over other identification methods and is a critical tool in associating severely fragmented remains, such as those that resulted from the World Trade Center (WTC) attacks, with victims." — Lessons Learned From 9/11: DNA Identification in Mass Fatality Incidents, September 2006.

According to Gonzalez, Schofield, and Schmitt (2006), "On September 11, 2001, 2,792 people were killed in terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center (WTC) in New York City. The number of victims, the condition of their remains, and the duration of the recovery effort made the identification of the victims the most difficult ever undertaken by the forensic community in this country" (p. 3). The use of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) as a means of providing virtually positive identification of victims of mass disasters is of fairly recent origin, having been introduced about 50 years ago, but the impetus has been to use these techniques for an ever-wider range of forensic applications.

During the 1990s, a number of states began to develop DNA identification programs. In 1993, the FBI implemented CODIS, a national program designed to (a) support federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies in creating a population statistical database; (b) improve DNA forensic analysis methods; and (c) serve humanitarian purposes such as the identification of missing persons or human remains from mass disasters (Lyon, 2002). The FBI favored the development of the CODIS application based on its "productivity and efficiency," but former director of the FBI crime laboratory John Hicks described the computer databank as "nothing more than an information management and screening tool" (Hoeffel, 1990, p. 527). The former director also indicated that he expected the initiative would "save time and effort, and courts will have fewer cases to process because investigations can be better focused and coordinated" (FBI, 1991, p. 37). The CODIS application links the DNA profiles of convicts gathered by scattered state law enforcement DNA labs, encourages uniform standards, and pools DNA data to facilitate identification of criminals across jurisdictions (Lyon, 2002). To date, a great number of convictions of murderers and other felons have been achieved through DNA identification (Milunsky, 2001).

Aftermath of the Terrorist Attacks on the Twin Towers

Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, many observers suggested that "things would never be the same," and in many ways this has proven true. The aftermath of the attacks resulted in renewed calls for improved intelligence and security procedures, and the American public demanded answers concerning how such a series of attacks could have occurred. September 11, 2001 now represents a demarcation point in American history; it is reasonable to assume that people generations from now will continue to describe events in terms of being "pre-" or "post-" September 11.

This view is congruent with the abundant media coverage that followed. On December 31, 2001, the New York Times published the final installment of daily victim portraits it had been printing since September 15, 2001. The close of that fateful year also witnessed the final edition of "A Nation Challenged," a special section devoted to coverage of the "War against Terror." According to Greenburg (2003), "The stand-alone section was deemed no longer necessary because the traumatic effects of September 11 had been woven into all aspects of national and international life. As of 2002, portraits would be published as further discoveries were made or as more families were willing to reveal their loss in print" (p. 39). The importance of being able to identify a lost loved one was made poignantly clear: on September 16, when just 39 victims had been identified, Katie Stern — whose husband Andrew had been included in the official body count — was quoted as saying she was relieved to know he was no longer among the missing, even though that knowledge also meant he was dead: "I'm so happy that I have his body, and that we have closure. I pray to God that he gives them their loved ones so that they, too, can have closure" (quoted in Greenburg, 2003, p. 39). This desire for closure, satisfiable only by the return or DNA-confirmed identification of a body, remained unfulfilled in many, many cases (Greenburg, 2003).

The importance of DNA evidence in the Twin Towers attacks cannot be overstated. Because many victims were rendered unidentifiable by conventional means, the use of DNA to establish the identities of these individuals is considered critically important.

To date, approximately 1,600 victims of the Twin Towers attacks have been successfully identified using DNA identification techniques (Gonzalez et al., 2006). Although DNA identification techniques continue to be refined and improved, it is unlikely that the identities of all victims of the September 11, 2001 attacks will ever be completely known. Gonzalez and his associates (2006) point out that "the answer to the question of whether every victim or every fragment of remains will be identified frames the scope of the DNA identification effort. Obviously, intact bodies will require fewer DNA tests than fragmented remains, although decomposing bodies may not easily yield full profiles" (p. 13). These authors also caution that "a number of variables affect the identifications that can be made in any mass disaster event. For example, it may not be possible to obtain family reference samples or a victim's personal effects, there may be no biological offspring, or the condition of the remains may preclude successful DNA typing" (Gonzalez et al., 2006, p. 21).

DNA samples are more than just a source of identification. Because they reveal information about health and genetic predisposition, they can expose individuals to workplace or insurance discrimination, creating categories of those "at risk." In addition, DNA samples can be used to reinforce racial or ethnic stereotypes (Lyon, 2002). Law enforcement authorities have come to rely heavily on genetic information as a central element of their investigative and prosecutorial responsibilities. "By gathering DNA samples from criminal perpetrators and potential suspects," Harlan (2004) advises, "investigators can utilize elaborate matching techniques and systems to determine the probability that any one individual is responsible for committing a crime" (p. 179). The importance of this type of proof-positive evidence is clear: of those exonerated by DNA evidence, approximately 80% had been falsely accused by eyewitnesses to the crime (Duke, Lee, & Pager, 2007). According to these authors, "FBI analysis of thousands of DNA samples in eyewitness cases supports the claim that as many as 25% of disputed eyewitness identifications may be erroneous" (Duke et al., 2007).

After an individual is positively identified, law enforcement authorities may retain possession of DNA samples even from those who were exonerated (Harlan, 2001). According to Jones (2005), "To date, 163 innocent people in nearly every jurisdiction in the country have been wrongly convicted and later exonerated, many as a result of DNA analysis performed on old evidence retained by the government. A major impediment to the use of DNA evidence to exonerate the wrongly convicted has been — and continues to be — the destruction of evidence, such as rape kits, by the government" (p. 1239). Jones (2005) further reports that "every jurisdiction has some form of evidence management policy or practice that establishes the procedures for storing physical evidence collected by the government in criminal cases, including various forms of biological evidence like rape kits, samples of hair, saliva, and semen" (p. 1239). In most cases, such evidence protection requires an evidence custodian, a stipulation concerning how long evidence must be preserved, and formal procedures that must be followed prior to the destruction of old evidence in closed criminal cases (Jones, 2005).

The value of old evidentiary materials has assumed new importance as DNA identification techniques have become more sophisticated and refined, a trend that has also increased focus on evidence management practices across the country by innocence projects and other advocates seeking to use new DNA technology on old evidence to exonerate wrongly convicted prisoners (Jones, 2005). According to Harlan (2004), "Sample retention is problematic not only because of these individuals' innocence, but also because of the resulting availability of sensitive genetic information and the lack of legislative and jurisprudential protections guarding release of the information" (p. 179). Beecher-Monas and Garcia-Rill (2006) caution that modern DNA identification techniques can be used to extrapolate far more than just an individual's identity, with profound social consequences: "DNA identification testing has become commonplace in the courts, transforming the criminal justice system, demonstrating innocence, and identifying perpetrators. Already it is clear that DNA testing will be used as a way of predicting which medical treatments will be effective. With predictive medicine becoming a reality, surely predicting human behavior cannot be far behind" (p. 301).

According to Gonzalez and his associates (2006), "DNA analysis is the gold standard for identification of human remains from mass disasters. Particularly in the absence of traditional anthropological and other physical characteristics, forensic DNA typing allows for identification of any biological sample and the association of body parts, as long as sufficient DNA can be recovered from the samples. This is true even when the victim's remains are fragmented and the DNA is degraded" (p. 9). The minimum fragment size needed for reliable DNA testing — usually 1 to 10 centimeters — should be based on three fundamental criteria: (a) maximizing the probability that all victims are identified; (b) recognizing the emotional needs of the victims' families and friends; and (c) providing forensically relevant information (Gonzalez et al., 2006). These authors add that "defining the acceptable minimum fragment size affects every aspect of the identification effort: how remains are collected at the incident site, how they are processed in the morgue, the number of samples that ultimately appear on the DNA analyst's workbench, and the likelihood of a successful DNA profile" (Gonzalez et al., 2006, p. 14).

According to Gonzalez et al. (2006), the extent to which human remains are fragmented or degraded determines the value of DNA analysis in the identification process; decomposing DNA does not yield the same results as less degraded material.

Because of the enormous expense involved in DNA identification testing in cases of mass casualties, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) remains the principal source of federal funding for mass fatality incidents (Gonzalez et al., 2006). Other sources of funding are also available. According to Lyon (2002), the 1994 Crime Control Act provided financial support for CODIS and other initiatives by establishing a coordinated nationwide DNA data bank system. A report sponsored by the Justice Department to implement the Act provided an award of $8.75 million in grants to state and city crime agencies to improve their DNA testing capabilities (Butterfield, 1996). As a result, all fifty states adopted laws requiring specified offenders to provide blood samples for forensic DNA testing (Lyon, 2002).

Other sources of funding for DNA identification testing are described by Carroll (2007), who reports that individuals in Missouri who request such tests in an attempt to exonerate themselves from criminal charges may be held liable for the cost of testing if the results confirm their guilt. Moreover, they may face additional time added to their existing sentences for filing frivolous petitions — given that they were apparently aware of their guilt prior to demanding such testing. Carroll (2007) recommends that all states enact a similar approach to prevent the abuse of DNA identification resources.

DNA Management: Sources, Numbering, and Databases

One of the most advantageous aspects of using DNA identification in cases of mass disasters is that DNA samples can be derived from virtually anything a person has touched or come into contact with. According to Nelkin and Andrews (2002), "A wad of spit, a spot of blood, a semen stain, or a single hair is all that is necessary to create a DNA 'fingerprint.' DNA profiles can be extracted not only from blood or sperm at a crime scene, but also from objects touched by a person's hands, and from saliva used to lick stamps. From a tiny sample of body tissue, a forensic laboratory can use an autoradiogram to create an image consisting of a cluster of horizontal bands that form a pattern resembling a bar code" (p. 94). Milunsky (2001) reports that "substances successfully mined for DNA in criminal cases have included blood specks, semen stains, hair roots, nasal mucus, saliva, and skin found under the nails of a victim, at a bite site, under a licked stamp or on an envelope, on an instrument of murder, or at other sites. A twenty-five-year-old vaginal swab taken for semen was successfully used in one criminal prosecution" (p. 84). As Harlan (2004) notes, "DNA is present on any item touched by an individual; it exists in hair, which is shed in public, and in saliva, such that it may be gathered from any used cup, straw, or spoon" (p. 179).

The three principal categories of potential DNA reference samples are: (1) Personal items (direct references) — biological samples such as blood stain cards, blood stored for elective surgery, pathology samples, semen samples, and extracted teeth, as well as personal-use items including hairbrushes, toothbrushes, razors, unwashed undergarments, and used hygiene items. Personal items are the most precious samples because they are scarce and allow for direct comparison, though sole use by the victim must be verified before an identification is reported. (2) Biological relatives (kin) — samples collected from biological relatives, typically via buccal swabs. The relative's biological relationship to the victim largely determines the utility of the sample; parents provide better reference samples than cousins. Sometimes the relative does not know his or her true relationship to the victim, and the lab must verify the relationship before reporting an identification. (3) Previously identified human remains — remains identified through other modalities, such as a torso identified by a unique tattoo or a medical examination, which may then serve as a reference sample to identify other remains fragments. Single teeth have proven to be unreliable reference samples because they are easily misidentified through non-DNA modalities (Gonzalez et al., 2006, p. 6).

To help facilitate on-site processing of DNA and kinship data, Gonzalez and his colleagues (2006) recommend having an information technology professional available. One software tool used for this purpose — also used in the DNA identification effort following the Twin Towers attacks — was CODIS. According to Gonzalez et al. (2006), "Two of CODIS' four files — the Missing Persons and Unidentified Human Remains Index (CODISmp) and the Reference Samples from Personal Items and Family Index — allow the search of DNA profiles. The use of mtDNA profiles as a screening system is facilitated by the introduction of the CODISmp system. Although designed for missing persons, the system may be used to search for DNA profiles of mass disaster victims" (p. 48). These authors add that "the typical strategy for accessioning reference samples is to assign each victim a case number and add reference samples as submissions under the case. The case number is important because it represents the victim's family and is used to group personal items and kinship samples for kinship matching" (Gonzalez et al., 2006, p. 49).

According to Gonzalez et al. (2006), new computer-based applications allow victim identification information to be recorded by directly storing it in a computer database on site. These authors report that "each sample in a mass fatality response will have several different sample numbers, each assigned during a particular business process. These sample numbers are actually references into other databases" (Gonzalez et al., 2006, p. 49).

Conclusion

In truth, the sophisticated DNA identification techniques that have emerged in recent years seem to be something straight out of science fiction, where people can be identified — for better or worse — simply by using articles they have touched or used. The research was consistent in showing that DNA identification techniques have become the "gold standard" of the criminal justice system in the United States and in many countries around the world today. The research also showed that DNA identification has become increasingly commonplace in cases of mass casualties such as the Oklahoma City bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building and the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center. The importance of these sophisticated identification techniques relates to their ability not only to provide proof-positive evidence of an individual's guilt or innocence in criminal cases, but also to provide identification for victims of natural and human-made disasters alike.

References

Akram, S. M. (2002). The aftermath of September 11, 2001: The targeting of Arabs and Muslims in America. Arab Studies Quarterly, 61.

Beecher-Monas, E., & Garcia-Rill, E. (2006). Genetic predictions of future dangerousness: Is there a blueprint for violence? Law and Contemporary Problems, 69(1–2), 301.

Butterfield, F. (1996, July 14). U.S. has plan to broaden availability of DNA testing. New York Times.

Carroll, G. (2007). Proven guilty: An examination of the penalty-free world of post-conviction DNA testing. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 97(2), 665.

Duke, S. B., Lee, A. S., & Pager, C. K. (2007). A picture's worth a thousand words: Conversational vs. eyewitness testimony in criminal convictions. American Criminal Law Review, 44(1), 1.

Duster, T. (2003). Backdoor to eugenics. New York: Routledge.

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (1991, November). Legislative guidelines for DNA databases. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Gonzalez, A. R., Schofield, R. B., & Schmitt, G. R. (2006, September). Lessons learned from 9/11: DNA identification in mass fatality incidents. President's DNA Initiative. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs.

Greenburg, J. (2003). Trauma at home: After 9/11. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

Gross, S. R., Jacoby, K., Matheson, D. J., Montgomery, N., & Patil, S. (2005). Exonerations in the United States 1989 through 2003. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 95(2), 523.

Harlan, L. M. (2004). When privacy fails: Invoking a property paradigm to mandate the destruction of DNA samples. Duke Law Journal, 54(1), 179.

Hoeffel, J. (1990). The dark side of DNA profiling. Stanford Law Review, 42, 527.

Jones, C. E. (2005). Evidence destroyed, innocence lost: The preservation of biological evidence under innocence protection statutes. American Criminal Law Review, 42(4), 1239.

Kaestle, F. A., Kittles, R. A., Roth, A. L., & Ungvarsky, E. J. (2006). Database limitations on the evidentiary value of forensic mitochondrial DNA evidence. American Criminal Law Review, 43(1), 53.

Lyon, D. (2002). Surveillance as social sorting: Privacy, risk, and digital discrimination. New York: Routledge.

Milunsky, A. (2001). Your genetic destiny: Know your genes, secure your health, and save your life. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books.