Forensic Science International 301 (2019) 350–357

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Forensic Science International

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/forsciint

Cranial blunt force trauma in relation to the victim’s position:

An experimental study using polyurethane bone spheres
Antoine Ruchonneta , Mallory Diehla , Yi-Hua Tanga,b , Elena F. Kraniotia,c,d,*
a
Edinburgh Unit of Forensic Anthropology, School of History, Classics and Archaeology, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
b
National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei City, Taiwan
c
Department of Forensic Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Crete, Greece
d
Forensic Pathology Division Crete, Hellenic Republic Ministry of Justice Transparency and Human Rights, Heraklion, Crete, Greece

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: Blunt force trauma is the most common injury found during autopsies. Among the cases involving blunt
Received 6 October 2018 force injuries, fractures to the skull are the most frequent, and these are often fatal to the victim.
Received in revised form 22 March 2019 Understanding the circumstances surrounding the creation of such injuries is essential for investigating
Accepted 22 May 2019
trauma-related deaths. This paper explores the characteristics of cranial trauma produced following one
Available online 5 June 2019
to three consecutive blows with a series of blunt objects.
Fourteen Synbone1 spheres filled with porcine gelatine and coated with rubber skin were used to
Keywords:
simulate the human skull in a series of experiments. Trials recreated two scenarios, individuals standing
Forensic pathology
Blunt force trauma
and individuals with their head resting against a hard surface. Six blunt objects were used to represent
Skull possible weapons. Each sphere was struck twice to generate fracture patterns, which were then analysed.
Cranial injuries In most simulations of a blow to the head resting against a hard surface, the first fracture follows a
Experimental research linear pattern regardless of the direction of force and/or the surface of the weapon; while the second
Synbone1 blow results in a depressed fracture. In the case of a free moving head, weapons with large contact
surfaces result in depressed fractures, while weapons with small contact surfaces may not cause a
fracture at all.
Our results are consistent with Moritz who stated that, if the head is free to move, the fractures will be
linear or incompletely depressed. Inversely, if the head rests against a solid surface, a blow will result in a
depressed fracture. More experiments are needed to verify these preliminary observations.
© 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction the facial structure (including the splanchnocranium) may be

Forensic pathologists consider blunt force trauma the most
common injury found in autopsies following traumatic events [1].
Among the cases involving blunt force trauma, fractures to the
skull are the most frequent and most likely to be fatal for the victim
[2,3]. Understanding the etiology of cranial trauma patterning is
therefore essential to forensic investigation [4].
The head is often the target of blunt force trauma in assaults [1,5] as
the face of an individual is the most personal and intimate target for
attack, and therefore serves as the foci of aggression [6,7]. Several
studies on homicidal blunt force trauma report the head to be the
location that is most frequently injured [8,9]. The obliteration of
* Corresponding author at: Department of Forensic Sciences Medical School,
University of Crete 71110, Heraklion, Crete, Greece. Tel.: +30 2810 542097; Fax +30
2810 392521.
E-mail address: ekranioti@uoc.gr (E.F. Kranioti).
considered –in the perpetrator’s mind– as a forensic countermeasure
in that it will delay or even impede the identification of a victim
through visual recognition or analysis of dental records. These
motivations may lead to the total destruction of the victim’s skull [10].
When investigating skull fractures, it is necessary to bear in
mind that any fracture is the result of one of the following
mechanical scenarios: (i) damage is localised at or nearby the point
of impact; (ii) fractures may first appear far away from the point of
impact or (iii) trauma patterns may exhibit features characteristic
of scenarios (i and ii), that is, some localised damage near the point
of impact along with more distant fracture, which both result from
a single impact (as in a singular blow) [2]. The location of the
fracture, is dependent upon various factors, most notably,
the velocity of the impacting object, as well as the intrinsic
resistance, elasticity, and strength of the bone [1,2,4,5].
The type and shape of the fracture is dependent on the speed
the object is moving when it strikes the bone. A high velocity
impact, as is caused by a bullet, a projectile violently flung from a

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2019.05.051
0379-0738/© 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
 A. Ruchonnet et al. / Forensic Science International 301 (2019) 350–357
slingshot, or a quick hammer strike, may create a depressed
fracture limited to a small area, reflecting the dimension of the
impacting object. Concomitantly, some radiating fractures may be
found in the periphery of the breakage. This type of radiating
damage is directly dependent on the resistance of the bone [2].
When the stress is applied very quickly, the bone goes through the
elastic and plastic phases more rapidly, and, subsequently, shatters
with little or no plastic deformation [2–4,11].
Low-velocity impacts to the head (car and airplane crashes,
blunt force trauma, fall from height, beatings, etc.) can bend the
bone below or up to its elastic limit. Subsequently it may returns to
its original shape after the force is removed (elastic deformation),
undergo permanent deformation (plastic deformation), or fracture
[12]. Specific fracture patterns have been associated with different
types of traumatic events. For instance linear fractures are often
the result of falls, and fractures to the vault are more often a result
of assault while fractures to the base of the skull are associated
with accidental injuries. It seems, however, that such generic rules
may not hold across a multiplicity of possible injury scenarios [10].
In homicidal assaults the victim may receive multiple blows to the
head with the same object, and the effect this has on fracture
patterns is not known [13].
This study will explore trauma patterns associated with low-
velocity blunt force trauma to the head using a series of
experimental procedures. More specifically it aims to investigate
cranial fracture patterns following low-impact strikes to the head
in two different scenarios: (a) blows received while the individual
is standing with their head free to move and (b) blows received
when the individual’s head is resting against a solid surface, like
the ground or a wall. For the purpose of the study, Synbone1
artificial spheres are used. Synbone1 spheres are designed for
ballistic testing [14], which is essentially high-velocity impact.
These tests successfully replicate macroscopic damage patterns
observed in real skeletal material [15,16]. A recent study on the
biomechanical properties of different surrogate head proxies
showed that Synbone1 spheres have a mean pore diameter very
similar to that reported for humans and a nominally low strain rate
(Young's modulus of 1.5 GPa when loaded transversely), which is
very similar to the reported values for human crania [17]. Hence,
they are the most appropriate commercially available proxies to
simulate the human cranial vault in this experimental study on
blunt force trauma.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Synbone1 spheres
Fourteen polyurethane spheres were used to simulate the human
cranium. The spheres are manufactured by the Swiss company
Synbone1 AG (Malans, Switzerland). The firm produces human and
animal anatomical models for teaching and research purposes. The
anatomical models are used quite extensively in surgical research
[18,19], ballistics testing [14–16,20] and recently in archaeology [21].
The model selected is the PR0110.G. It consists of two hollow
hemispheres glued together. The spheres are 190 mm in diameter,
7 mm thick, and weigh approximately 600 g when empty. They are
Table 1
Description of each weapon used in the experimental process.
Weapon Aluminium baseball bat Wooden baseball bat
Material Aluminium Wood
Length (in mm) 810 840
Weight (in g) 450 702
Max Ø (in mm) 66.1 62.5
Min Ø (in mm) 24.6 23
351
made of modified polyurethane and wrapped in a rubber coating, to
simulate the skin and periosteum. The sphere is a simplified version
of the human skull, the glue line between the two hemispheres being
similar to a suture line. The polyurethane has been specifically
engineered to simulate the material/ biomechanical properties of the
human cranial vault [22].
2.2. Ballistic gelatine
Ballistic gelatine [23] was used to simulate the human brain
and cerebrospinal fluids following previous work [15]. The
gelatine is a product of Sigma-Aldrich1. It is made from porcine
skin, specifically for the purpose of ballistic experimentation
(Type 3). Previous work [15,24,25] suggests that 10% gelatine is a
suitable substitute for cranial soft tissues. For the gelatine
preparation we followed the protocol developed by Fackler and
Malinowski; [24,26] also described by Sellier and Kneubuehl [27].
Detailed description of the gelatine preparation can be found in
Supplementary material 1.
2.3. Weapons
In order to create blunt force trauma, six weapons were used:
an aluminium bat (AB) a wooden bat (WB), a rolling pin (RP), a
wooden club (C) a window opening pole (OP). Four of them were
composed of wood (WB, RP, C, OP) and one of aluminium (AB). All
were of different diameters. A list of the weapons, material,
dimensions and weights can be found in Table 1 and Fig. 1, for a
detailed description refer to Supplementary material 2.
2.4. Experiments
A total of fourteen experiments were conducted. The experi-
mental process consisted of a subject wielding a weapon against a
Synbone1 sphere, to create a fracture pattern. The spheres were
struck one to three times, to generate distinguishable patterns.
Seven spheres were struck using diverse weapons to simulate
assault to the head of an individual resting on a solid surface (e.g.
person on the ground, against the wall etc.) The same weapons
were used on seven spheres to simulate blows to the head of a
standing individual.
The experimental process is described below:
1 Head against a solid surface scenario:
A metallic force scale provided a rigid and immobile surface to
simulate a wall or floor (see Supplementary material 3). This
setting was employed to record force values, but these were not
analysed in this instance due to the fact that consistent
recording was not possible for all experimental settings. A total
of seven spheres were hit following this methodology to test the
six weapons.
a) Round 1. Three weapons (AB,WB,RP) were used to apply two
consecutive blows to each one of the four Synbone1 spheres
from a diagonal direction (approximately a 45 angle relative
to the top of the sphere). A fourth weapon (OP) was used to
strike a sphere three times diagonally.
Rolling pin Window opening pole Club
Wood Wood Wood
464 691 741
522 385 344
46.8 23.5 38.1
33.5 23.5 35.3
352 A. Ruchonnet et al. / Forensic Science International 301 (2019) 350–357

obtain a three dimensional rendering of every object. They were

then emptied of the gelatine and their rubber skins peeled off.
Photographs were taken again, of the whole object and of the
potential fragments that were dislodged during the processing.
Measurements of the fractures were taken with sliding callipers or
measuring tape. Due to the curved nature of the sphere,
measurement of some fragments and linear fractures required
the use of a measuring tape.

3. Results

The weapons can be divided in two categories: Large diameter

weapons, such as Baseball bats, and small diameter weapons.
Table 2 summarises the fracture patterns caused by each weapon,
Fig. 1. Weapons used in the experiments.
the number of strikes, the position of the sphere, and the direction
of the force.

b) Round 2. Two wooden weapons (WB, C) were used to apply
two consecutive blows to each one of the two Synbone1
spheres from a vertical direction.
c) Round 3. One wooden weapon (WB) was used to apply two
consecutive blows to one Synbone1 sphere from a vertical
direction.
2 Free moving head of a standing individual:
This part of the experiment involved a head free to move when
struck. Five experiments using all available weapons (Round 1)
took place after fixing the mannequin torso on a chair at 1.60 m
height. The spheres were taped to a cork ring on the neck allowing
them to move upon impact. WB was used to inflict 1 strike and the
remaining 4 weapons were used to inflict three strikes. The strikes
were applied in vertical direction. In addition, the WB was used to
inflict two consecutive strikes to one Synbone1 sphere from a
diagonal direction.
A second setting included a cork ring placed on the neck of a
mannequin, to which the sphere was affixed using tape. The
dummy torso was placed with the waist against a solid surface and
fixed to simulate a standing individual with a height of 1.90 m. Two
independent experiments (single strike) using the AB were
conducted using this setting. The direction of the blow was
vertical in both cases.
Table 2 presents a summary of the experiments with each
weapon for both scenarios.
2.5. Data acquisition and fracture documentation
Multiple pictures of the fracture and damage inflicted to the
spheres were taken at each step as well as videos of each strike. The
spheres were fully scanned by a 3D3 Solutions surface scanner, to
3.1. Large diameter weapons
As seen in Table 2, on a free moving head, large diameter objects
created a depressed fracture on the first strike, regardless of the
position of the head, the direction of the force, the material of the
object, and the strength of the assailant. When the spheres were
resting on a hard surface, both baseball bats created a linear fracture
on the first strike followed by a depressed fracture on the second
strike in both vertical and diagonal position (See Figs. 2 and 3).
3.2. Small diameter weapons
All weapons of this category resulted in skin laceration after
striking a free moving head vertically. The rolling pin created a
linear fracture on the second and a depressed on the third strike,
after the applied force was increased considerably. The club caused
no fracture to the Synbone1 in the first two strikes and a small
hairline fracture on the third strike but the counterforce resulted in
damage of the weapon itself.
The rolling pin and the club produced linear or incomplete
depressed fractures, followed by a depressed fracture after two
strikes to a head against a flat surface, regardless of the direction of
the force. See Fig. 4.
The window pole did not cause any severe fracture regardless of
the position of the head and the direction of the force except for a
small hairline fracture after the third strike from a diagonal
position.
3.3. Dimensions of the fractures
The lengths of the linear fractures and the depressed areas were
measured, and measurements are given in Table 3. The values have

Table 2
Summary table of the fracture patterns produced in each experiment.

Position Round Strike Al baseball bat Wooden baseball bat Rolling pin Club Window opening pole Direction
On a hard surface Round 1 Strike 1 Linear Linear Linear No fracture Diagonal
Strike 2 Depressed Depressed Depressed No fracture
Strike 3 Hairline fracture
Round 2 Strike 1 Linear Linear Vertical
Strike 2 Depressed Depressed
Round 3 Strike 1 Linear
Strike 2 Depressed
Resistance free Setting 1 Strike 1 Depressed Diagonal
Strike 2 Depressed- fragmentation
Strike 1 Depressed No fracture No fracture No fracture Vertical
Strike 2 Linear No fracture No fracture
Strike 3 Depressed Hairline fracture No Fracture
Setting 2 Strike 1 Depressed
Strike 1 Depressed
 A. Ruchonnet et al. / Forensic Science International 301 (2019) 350–357
Fig. 2. Strikes with an aluminium baseball bat (a–b) one blow on a on a free moving head (c) one blow on a hard surface (d) two blows on a hard surface. White arrows indicate
the impact points after the first blow and black arrows the impact site of the second blow.
been compared by weapon, i.e. the fracture length or the depressed
area created by a certain weapon in the two assault scenarios. The
same implement appears to be more destructive when the blow is
struck on a hard surface than when the head is free to move. The
linear fractures are longer, and the area affected is typically wider
when the sphere rests on the scale than when it is mounted on the
mannequin. On average, the linear fractures measured 508.4 mm
on the scale and 326.3 mm on the mannequin and the depressed
area was 4491.1 mm2 on the scale and 3188.7 mm2 in the free to
move configuration. The damage is more extensive when spheres
are hit while resting on a hard surface than when spheres are free
to move.
4. Discussion
Experimental studies on cranial blunt force trauma used
material ranging from coconuts [28] to primate [29] and pig
crania as well as human cadavers [30]. These tests achieved
variable results, and each had distinct methodological drawbacks.
Surrogate models have often proven inadequate for experimental
testing, as the anatomical dissimilarities with the human head did
not allow for realistic simulations. Porcine models were used to
investigate sharp force trauma [31] and blunt force trauma, with
very poor results for the latter. This was mainly due to the fact that
the porcine skull is considerably more flexible than the human
skull. At the same time the skin and subcutaneous fat is very thick.
Porcine cranial sutures can move more freely than in humans,
which often results in no lasting damage. The same factors had less
353
effect on experiments testing sharp force trauma. These resulted in
more realistic patterns of injury, with clear cut-marks on the
surface of the bone that could be used to identify the type of
weapon employed [31,28].
Kroman et al. [32] experimented on human cadavers to study
the patterns of blunt force trauma to the head in relation to the
mechanism of fracture. This study represents the closest simula-
tion to perimortem trauma possible, but it raises several ethical
concerns regarding the proper treatment of human remains. It is
not surprising that it remains the only recent experimental blunt
force trauma study on actual human cadavers.
This project used artificial material instead of organic tissues
such as animal heads. Recent experiments on blunt force trauma
[14,33] suggest that synthetic bone spheres produce far more
accurate results than porcine models. This makes them an ideal
material for experimental use, as they raise none of the ethical
_
concerns associated with the use of animals or cadavers. Işcan and
Steyn [11] and Berrymann and Symes [12] Thali et al. [14] tested
skin and skull injuries on their “skin-skull-brain” model by using a
modification of Messerer’s experimental set-up. The authors
conducted experimental blows with a hammer at different angles,
and this resulted in realistic injury patterns both for the skin and
the synthetic skull [14]. A case study simulating three consecutive
blows with a baseball on an artificial skull made by Synbone1
synthetic material resulted in a similar trauma pattern to that
observed in a real case, although the authors note
that fragmentation was less extensive and involved fewer frag-
ments in the artificial model [33].
354 A. Ruchonnet et al. / Forensic Science International 301 (2019) 350–357

Fig. 3. A single blow with a wooden Baseball bat on a free moving head in SYNBONE1 1 (S1) resulted in a depressed fracture (a) with radiating fractures extending to the
‘foramen magnum’ of the head-model (b). Two consecutive blows with the same weapon on a free moving head (S2) resulted in a linear fracture (c) after the first blow and a
depressed fracture with two small lacerations (stars) after the second blow (d). White arrows indicate the impact site after the first blow and black arrows the impact site of
the second blow. Note the radiating fracture R1 which stops when it meets the preexisting LF (c,d).

Fig. 4. Small diameter weapons fractures (a) lacerations and linear fracture after strike with a rolling pin on a free moving head. (b) Linear (white arrow) and incompletely
depressed (black dotted arrow) fractures after strikes with a wooden club on a head with resistance. (c) Linear (white arrow) and incompletely depressed (black dotted arrow)
fractures after strikes with a polling pin on a head with resistance.

In our study we tested two different scenarios and several
weapons of different weight and diameter. Low-velocity impact
with large objects (e.g. baseball bats) resulted in depressed
fractures on a resistance free head, and such assaults produced
linear fractures when the head was placed against a solid surface.
Smaller diameter objects required more effort to cause fractures on
a free moving head. When the head rests against a surface, they
initially cause linear fractures, sometimes associated with a small
depression or hairline radiations from the impact site. The second
strike produces depressed fractures (see Fig. 4b and c). The
depressed fractures caused by the baseball bats (Figs. 2 and 3) are
almost identical to the patterns described by Moritz [2] and
Berryman and Symes [12] Zhi-Jin and Jia-Zhen [3] and Clark et al.
Our observations are consistent with the case study by Glasser
et al. [33] that simulated a baseball bat injury with the head resting
in a solid surface which also produced first a linear fracture
extending to the occipital bone and then a depressed fracture. The
results also agree with previous studies which suggested that
macroscopic appearance of the fractures on Synbone1 following
blunt force trauma matched real fracture patterns — and reinforce
the suitability of Synbone1 spheres as experimental substitutes to
test forensic scenarios [14,15].
The experimental data further suggest that objects with large
surfaces tend to create incompletely depressed fractures on a free
 A. Ruchonnet et al. / Forensic Science International 301 (2019) 350–357 355

Table 3 moving head, while elongated objects with smaller diameter tend
Measurements of the fractures after each blow in relation to the injury pattern and
to create linear fractures. This is consistent with Moritz [2], who
corresponding weapon.
states “if the head is free to move with the impact the fractures
Position Blow Weapon Fracture length or area Fracture tend to be linear or incompletely depressed [...]”. Single strikes on a
On scale First Rolling pin 501 mm Linear head against a solid surface resulted in linear fractures in all cases,
Second Rolling pin 1690.97 mm2 Depressed independently of the diameter of the striking surface, the direction
First Baseball bat 433 mm Linear
of the blow, the weight of the object, and strength of the ‘assailant’.
Second Baseball bat 4857.5 mm2 Depressed
First Open. pole – No
Moritz [2] also states that “if the head rests against a solid surface
Second Open. pole – No heavy blows will comminute the skull and drive the fragments
Third Open. pole 27.3 mm Hairline inwards.” Importantly, none of the weapons here weighs more
First Baseball bat 511 mm Linear than 700 g, which means they do not fall in the category of ‘heavy
Second Baseball bat 7520 mm2 Depressed
blows’. Interestingly a clinical study on baseball bat assaults [34]
First Baseball bat 525 mm Linear
Second Baseball bat 7539 mm2 Depressed reported that the majority of the injuries were linear fractures on
First Al Baseball bat 546mm Linear the cranial base (31/39). Only eight were located on the vault, and
Second Al Baseball bat 7452 mm2 Depressed of the recorded vault fractures five were linear and three were
First Club 551 mm Linear
depressed. This study did not provide any information on the
Second Club 935 mm2 Depressed
Resistance free First Al baseball bat 4312.5 mm2 Depressed
position of the victim when struck, and the number of cranial
First Al baseball bat 5000 mm2 Depressed fractures on the vault is insufficient to draw any meaningful
First Baseball bat 2585.6 mm2 Depressed conclusions on the most common fracture patterns.
First Baseball bat 2417 mm2 Depressed Regarding the extent of the injuries, when the length of the
Second Baseball bat 8942 mm2 Depressed
linear fractures and the depressed areas are compared between
First Club – No
Second Club – No the two scenarios, it appears that the spheres struck against the
Third Club 229mm Hairline hard surface of the scale suffered more severe and extensive
First Rolling pin – No damage than spheres that were free to move. The linear fractures
Second Rolling pin 431 mm Linear measured on free moving spheres are more than one third shorter
Third Rolling pin 856.8 mm2 Depressed
than those struck while resting on the scale. The depressed area is
more than one-quarter smaller when the sphere is free to move.
These differences do not seem to depend on the type and diameter
of the weapon, or the strength of the attacker. The spheres freedom
of movement appears solely responsible for the discrepancy in

Fig. 5. Example of cranial injuries after a fatal attack with a metallic pipe. The lacerations on the head indicate at least two blows (a). The observed cranial fractures include
crushing injuries on the frontal area (b) a linear facture on the vault (c), an incompletely depressed with a pond fracture in the endocranial surface of the vault (d).
Source: Prof. Manolis Michalodimitrakis, Department of Forensic Sciences, University of Crete, Greece.
356 A. Ruchonnet et al. / Forensic Science International 301 (2019) 350–357
damage. The sphere, when allowed to move away from the impact,
appears to dissipate enough force to sustain less damage than it
would if resting on a hard surface. According to Newton’s third law
of motion, the downward impact creates an upward counter force
that inflicts greater damage when the sphere rests against a hard
surface. The reaction is not as strong in the free standing scenario,
because part of the energy is transformed into kinetic energy that
moves the head.
Obviously, several factors need to be taken under consideration
when using a model to simulate real world events, and conclusions
must be drawn with caution. However, the results suggest that
Synbone1 spheres can be used to simulate the human head in order
to test different blunt force trauma scenarios, and suggest which is
the most likely to have produced a certain fracture pattern. The
patterns produced by the experiments are consistent, reproducible,
and can approximate real situations. Furthermore, biomechanical
testing of Synbone1 spheres suggested that they are one of the two
artificial materials currently available that most accurately simulates
the human diploe [17]. Yet, in order to suggest a possible assault
scenario several details about the circumstances of the violent
incident must be known. All the fracture patterns produced here
were confined to the vault, and the model does not capture either the
anatomical complexity of the human skull (thickness, shape,
muscles, hair, etc.) or the reaction of the ‘victim’ being struck. Thus
the observed patterns will not fit every situation.
Fig. 5 illustrates cranial injuries after multiple strikes with a
metallic pipe from a homicide case. The complexity of the cranial
injuries reflect the effect of numerous factors (position of the
victim when struck, anatomical complexity of the head and skull,
number of blows, the victim’s reaction etc.) on the fracture
patterns. This example clearly demonstrates that interpretation of
injuries should not follow a simplistic approach based solely on
fracture patterns. Reconstruction of an assault should always take
under consideration all available evidence for each case.
5. Conclusion
Cranial fractures can be caused by many different scenarios and
mechanisms, and successfully interpreting the patterns produced in
different scenarios is of great importance to the success of forensic
investigations. Several factors affect the pattern, extent, and severity
of cranial trauma. Therefore it is very challenging to accurately
interpret them. Experimental synthetic bone sphere models were
used to identify differences in the patterns of injuries produced when
the victim is struck with a blunt instrument in different positions.
Synbone1 spheres seemed to successfully simulate the cranial vault
in the experiments, which supports the findings of previous studies
[14–16]. Preliminary observations of cranial trauma patterns in
relation to the position of the victim when struck appeared
consistent. Single blows on a head resting against a hard surface
resulted invariably in a linear fracture, independent of the
dimensions of the object used. The damage exhibited by a head
free to move appeared more dependent on the dimensions of the
blunt object. In both scenarios, a second blow is more like to cause
depressed fractures and fragmentation, though the damage inflicted
is significantly greater when the head rests against a solid surface.
The number of experiments is insufficient for any statistical testing,
and the descriptive results presented here should be treated with
caution and confirmed in a larger follow up study. Nevertheless, the
use of Synbone1 substitutes for testing forensic scenarios involving
cranial injuries seems promising.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Anna Evatt, Caroline
Ruchonnet, Julieta G. Garcia-Donas, Mara Karell, Helen Langstaff,
Lukas Albietz and Alan Dalton for their help during the experi-
ments. Part of this project was funded by the Munro Research
Grant of the University of Edinburgh. Elena Kranioti would like to
thank Prof. Manolis Michalodimitrakis and the Department of
Forensic Sciences of the University of Crete for giving permission
for the use of the photographs included in this manuscript. The
authors are grateful to Dr Benjamin Osipov for the English review.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary material related to this article can be
found, in the online version, at doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
forsciint.2019.05.051.
References
[1] W.U. Spitz, Spitz and Fisher’s Medicolegal Investigation of Death: Guidelines
for the Application of Pathology to Crime Investigation, 4th ed., Charles C.
Thomas, Springfield, Illinois, 2006.
[2] A. Moritz, Pathology of Trauma, 2nd ed., Lea & Febiger, Philadelphia, 1954.
[3] Z. Zhi-Jin, Z. Jia-Zhen, Study on the microstructures of skull fracture, Forensic
Sci. Int. 50 (1991) 1–14, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0379-0738(91)90127-5.
[4] S. Symes, E. L’Abbé, E. Chapman, I. Wolff, D.C. Dirkmaat, Interpreting traumatic
injury to bone in medicolegal investigations, in: D.C. Dirkmaat (Ed.), A
Companion to Forensic Anthropol, 1st ed., John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Chichester,
UK, 2012, pp. 340–389.
[5] E. Kranioti, Forensic investigation of cranial injuries due to blunt force trauma:
current best practice, Res. Rep. Forensic Med. Sci. 5 (2015) 25–37, doi:http://dx.
doi.org/10.2147/RRFMS.S70423.
[6] S. Pinker, The Better Angles of Our Nature: A History of Violence and Humanity,
1st ed., Penguin Books Ltd., London, 2011.
[7] C. Eckhardt, B. Norland, J. Deffenbacher, The assessment of anger and hostility:
a critical review, Aggress. Violent Behav. 9 (2004) 17–43, doi:http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/S1359-1789(02)001167.
[8] S. Mohanty, M.K. Mohanty, M.K. Panigrahi, S.K. Das, Fatal head injury in
homicidal victims, Med. Sci. Law 45 (2005) 244–248, doi:http://dx.doi.org/
10.1258/rsmmsl.45.3.244.
[9] C. Clark, C.G. Mole, M. Heyns, Patterns of death due to blunt force trauma in the
West Metropole of the City of Cape Town, South Africa, S. Afr. J. Sci. 113 (2015)
1–6, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.17159/sajs.2017/20160214.
[10] A. Galloway, Broken Bones. Anthropological Analysis of Blunt Force Trauma,
First, Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, Illinois, 1999.
_
[11] M. Işcan, M. Steyn, The Human Skeleton in Forensic Medicine, 3rd ed., Charles
C. Thomas, Springfield, Illinois, 2013.
[12] H. Berrymann, S.A. Symes, Recognizing gunshot and blunt cranial trauma
through fracture interpretation, in: K. Reichs (Ed.), Forensic Osteol. Adv.
Identif. Hum. Remain, 1st ed., CC Thomas, Springfield, Illinois, 1998, pp.
333–352.
[13] G. Murphy, Beaten to death. An autopsy series of Homicidal blunt force
injuries, Am. J. Forensic Med. Pathol. 12 (1991) 98–101.
[14] M.J. Thali, B.P. Kneubuehl, R. Dirnhofer, A “skin-skull-brain model” for the
biomechanical reconstruction of blunt forces to the human head, Forensic
Sci. Int. 125 (2002) 195–200, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0379-0738(01)
00639-9.
[15] M.J. Smith, S. James, T. Pover, N. Ball, V. Barnetson, B. Foster, C. Guy, J. Rickman, V.
Walton, Fantastic plastic? Experimental evaluation of polyurethane bone
substitutes as proxies for human bone in trauma simulations, Leg. Med. (Tokyo)
17 (2015) 427–435, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.legalmed.2015.06.007.
[16] S.C. Taylor, E.F. Kranioti, Cranial trauma in handgun executions: experimental
data using polyurethane proxies, Forensic Sci. Int. 282 (2018) 157–167, doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2017.11.032.
[17] A.D. Brown, J.B. Walters, Y.X. Zhang, M. Saadatfar, J.P. Escobedo-Diaz, P.J. Hazell,
The mechanical response of commercially available bone simulants for quasi-
static and dynamic loading, J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 90 (2019) 404–416,
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2018.10.032.
[18] R. Jiang, C.-F. Luo, B.-F. Zeng, Biomechanical evaluation of different fixation
methods for fracture dislocation involving the proximal tibia, Clin. Biomech.
(Bristol, Avon) 23 (2008) 1059–1064, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbio-
mech.2008.04.005.
[19] J. Buschbaum, R. Fremd, T. Pohlemann, A. Kristen, Computer-assisted fracture
reduction: a new approach for repositioning femoral fractures and planning
reduction paths, Int. J. Comput. Assist. Radiol. Surg. 10 (2015) 149–159, doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11548-014-1011-2.
[20] P. Mahoney, D. Carr, N. Hunt, R.J. Delaney, Assessment of polyurethane spheres
as surrogates for military ballistic head injury, Int. J. Legal Med. 133 (2019)
163–167, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00414-018-1832-6.
[21] M. Dyer, L. Fibiger, Understanding blunt force trauma and violence in Neolithic
Europe: the first experiments using a skin-skull-brain model and the Thames
Beater, Antiquity 91 (2017) 1515–1528, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.15184/
aqy.2017.189.
 A. Ruchonnet et al. / Forensic Science International 301 (2019) 350–357
[22] https://www.synbone.com/product/generic-sphere-7mm-3/ (accessed on 09/
06/2019).
[23] J. Jussila, Preparing ballistic gelatin—review and proposal for a standard
method, Forensic Sci. Int. 141 (2004) 91–98, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
forsciint.2003.11.036.
[24] M.L. Fackler, J.A. Malinowski, The wound profile: a visual method for
quantifying gunshot wound components, J. Trauma 25 (1985) 522–529.
[25] Y. Toyoda, Y.M. Gupta, Shockless and shock wave compression of ballistic gel to
1.3 GPa, J. Appl. Phys. 116 (2014), doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4898679.
[26] M.L. Fackler, J.A. Malinowski, Ordnance gelatin for ballistic studies. Detrimen-
tal effect of excess heat used in gelatin preparation, Am. J. Forensic Med. Pathol.
9 (1988) 218–219.
[27] K. Sellier, B. Kneubuehl, Wound Ballistics and the Scientific Background first,
Elvesier, Amsterdam, 1994.
[28] J.E. Christensen, M.L. Jorkov, N. Lynnerup, Using coconuts as a model for
analysing the injury pattern of cranial blunt trauma, Open Anthropol. J. 1
(2008) 33–37, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.2174/1874912700801010033.
357
[29] N.A. Sulaiman, K. Osman, N.H. Hamzah, S.P.A. Amir Hamzah, Blunt force
trauma to skull with various instruments, Malays. J. Pathol. 36 (2014) 33–39.
[30] N. Yoganandan, F.A. Pintar, Biomechanics of temporo-parietal skull fracture,
Clin. Biomech. (Bristol, Avon) 19 (2004) 225–239, doi:http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2003.12.014.
[31] S. Donnellan, F. Chatzinikolaou, E. Kranioti, Morphological analysis of sharp
force trauma patterns using high resolution, in: M. Gulmen (Ed.), Proc. 22rd
Congr. Int. Acad. Leg. Med, Medimond, Bologna, 2012, pp. 107–114.
[32] A. Kroman, T. Kress, D. Porta, Fracture propagation in the human cranium: a re-
testing of popular theories, Clin. Anat. 24 (2011) 309–318, doi:http://dx.doi.
org/10.1002/ca.21129.
[33] N. Glasser, B.P. Kneubuehl, S. Zuber, S. Axmann, T. Ketterer, M.J. Thali, S.A.
Bolliger, Biomechanical examination of blunt trauma due to baseball bat blows
to the head, J. Forensic Biomech. 2 (2011), doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.4303/jfb/
F100601.
[34] M. Dujovny, I. Onyekachi, E. Perez-Arjona, Baseball bats: a silent weapon, Neurol.
Res. 31 (2009) 1005–1011, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/174313209X385716.