Volume 63, Issue 6 pp. 1813-1818
Technical Note

Identifying Differences Between Cut Marks Made on Bone by a Machete and Katana: A Pilot Study

Penny McCardle B.A. (Hons)

Corresponding Author

Penny McCardle B.A. (Hons)

Faculty of Health, Department of Forensic Medicine Newcastle, University of Newcastle, University Drive, Callighan, NSW 2308, Australia

Additional information and reprint requests:

Penny McCardle, B.A.

Faculty of Health

Department of Forensic Medicine Newcastle

University of Newcastle

University DRive

Callighan

NSW 2308

Australia

E-mail: [email protected]

Search for more papers by this author
Elizabeth Stojanovski Ph.D.

Elizabeth Stojanovski Ph.D.

School of Mathematical and Physical Sciences, University of Newcastle, University Drive, Callighan, NSW 2308, Australia

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 21 February 2018
Citations: 11

Abstract

The aim of this research was to identify characteristics specific to a machete and katana on three different bone types. One machete and two katanas were used to produce cut marks on Sus scrofa rib, flat and long bones. Fifty-nine cuts were produced by the katanas and 38 by the machete. The presence of flaking, feathering, peeling, micropeeling, chattering, microcurvature, scoop defect, and exit notch was noted, and bivariate associations between each characteristic and weapon type were assessed using Pearson's chi-square tests for independence and logistic regression models developed. Significant predictors for machete cut marks are scoop defect for rib bones (correct classification 93%), micropeeling in flat bones, chattering on flat and long bones (all p < 001) and for the katana, microcurvature (p < 004) and exit notch on flat and long bones (p < 001; correct classification 96% and 100%, respectively). The identified bivariate associations and final logistic regression models may be utilized in forensic investigations when identifying hacking trauma.

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.