DNA Identification of 9/11 Mass Fatality Victims
This paper analyzes the DNA identification effort undertaken following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, in which 2,792 people were killed. Drawing primarily on the U.S. Department of Justice's 2006 report, the paper examines the methods used to identify victims — including short tandem repeat (STR) analysis, mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) typing, and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplification — as well as the practical challenges posed by fragmented and decomposing remains. It also addresses DNA evidence management, database systems such as CODIS, legal restrictions on DNA use, funding mechanisms, probability ratios, and the role of family reference samples in victim identification.
- Introduction: DNA evidence and CODIS in forensic history
- Aftermath of the Terrorist Attacks on the Twin Towers: 9/11 victim identification challenges and DNA evidence
- DNA Management: Sources, Numbering, and Databases: Sample sourcing, on-site numbering, database storage
- DNA Analysis Methods Used in Identification: PCR, mtDNA, STR, and SNP techniques explained
- Probability Ratios and Linking Victims to Remains: Kinship samples and probabilistic victim matching
- Conclusion: DNA as gold standard in mass fatality identification
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Grounds technical forensic content in a specific, well-documented historical event, giving abstract methodology real-world stakes and human significance.
- Integrates authoritative primary sources — particularly the 2006 DOJ/President's DNA Initiative report — alongside peer-reviewed legal and scientific scholarship, lending credibility to both the science and the policy dimensions.
- Balances technical explanation (PCR, STR, mtDNA, VNTR) with accessible narrative, making complex laboratory procedures understandable to a general academic audience.
- Addresses legal and ethical dimensions of DNA evidence — wrongful convictions, privacy, evidence retention — alongside the identification science, demonstrating awareness of broader implications.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper exemplifies source synthesis across disciplinary boundaries, weaving together forensic science, criminal law, civil liberties scholarship, and public policy into a coherent argument. Rather than treating DNA identification as purely technical, the author consistently contextualizes methods within legal frameworks and human consequences, a hallmark of effective interdisciplinary academic writing.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a historical and policy introduction establishing CODIS and the forensic context. It then narrows to the 9/11 aftermath, addressing the importance of DNA evidence, identification rates, legal restrictions, fragment size, and funding. A dedicated section covers DNA management (sample sources, on-site numbering, database storage). The analytical core systematically covers extraction, PCR, mtDNA, SNPs, and STR analysis. A probability and kinship section follows before a brief concluding synthesis. The structure moves from context → challenge → method → application → conclusion.
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).
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.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.