252 Forensic dentistry
12.6 Identification Section
The first priority for responders to an MFI is to establish who is in charge.
Through training and establishment of response manuals this person is usu-
ally defined for most local jurisdictions. The problem arises when many state
and federal agencies come together in a response role and then try to work
as independent agencies. Most response models are developed around the
Incident Command System (ICS).^2 This system identifies a hierarchy of com-
mand with well-defined assignments for support groups. The overall respon-
sibility for the operation lies with the incident commander. Any assignments
within the command framework not delegated to others revert to the incident
commander. In more complicated situations with many agencies involved, a
modified system can be implemented with a unified command replacing a
single incident commander. The unified command is composed of agency
representatives who have full authority to make policy decisions for their
respective agencies. There is an agreement made before the unified command
is activated that it will work as a democratic body, with each agency repre-
sented committed to follow the decisions of the entire group. By following
the ICS chain of command all team members can identify the appropriate
individual to whom they can address concerns.
Early in an MFI identification operation the decision of how to accom-
plish the identification of unidentified victims must be established. Although
deciding on a victim and missing person numbering system may seem
uncomplicated, in the past there have been almost as many different number-
ing systems as operations done. In this author’s opinion, simple is better. With
the use of computers so prevalent, numbering systems need only be tailored
for estimated numbers and some obvious differentiation between antemortem
and postmortem records. Always begin the antemortem or postmortem
records with a variation of the number 1. For purposes of electronic database
storage and order, zeros can be added before the 1 to approximate the total
number of records expected. For example, if there are three hundred expected
fatalities, the first number would be 001. This would not only accommodate
the 300 expected fatalities, but also could be used if the incident increased up
to 999 victims. Antemortem records can easily be numbered in the same way,
with the addition of A to appear before the number to make an obvious dif-
ference between antemortem (A001) and postmortem (P001). Never allow the
name of missing persons to be used for unique record identifiers. There is too
great a chance that two people could share the same name. As far as using the
numbering system to show recovery areas, operation names, or any other bits
of information, digital databases replace this function with record-specific
data cells that can be ordered or searched as necessary. If numbering systems
are changed for any reason in the middle of an operation, many problems will