Wilton Marion Krogman, Ph.D. (1903-1987): the end of an era

Dr. Wilton Marion Krogman was one of the major founders of physical and forensic anthropology in the United States. His extraordinary career spanned nearly six decades, and he was universally admired and respected for his scholarship, teaching, research, wit, and humanity. While studies based on human skeletal remains have long been used to assist the medicolegal system, the late Dr. Krogman can be credited with uniting these areas into the discipline of forensic anthropology. His "Guide to the Identification of Human Skeletal Material" (1939) in the F.B.I. Law Enforcement Bulletin became the foundation of this discipline; his monumental book The Human Skeleton in Forensic Medicine (updated with the author in 1986) solidified its establishment. The purpose of this paper is to pay tribute to this great man and outline his influence on the development and advancement of forensic anthropology.     

The state action doctrine and the Local Government Antitrust Act: the restructured public hospital model

This Article analyzes the development and complexities of the antitrust state action doctrine and the Local Government Antitrust Act as these doctrines apply to both "municipalities" and private entities. The restructuring of a public hospital is used as a model to facilitate the antitrust analysis. The restructuring model, which typically involves the leasing of a hospital facility by a public entity to a private nonprofit corporation, offers the unique opportunity to compare the different standards employed under the state action doctrine and the Local Government Antitrust Act. As a practical matter, the Article provides a framework for a public hospital to evaluate the impact of corporate restructuring on its antitrust liability exposure and to develop strategies to minimize antitrust risks.     

Identification of a red "fiber": chironomid larvae

During preliminary examination of the body of a homicide victim, a peculiar red "fiber" was noticed and recovered. Initially believing this to be a carpet fiber, the item was subjected to fiber analysis. It was found to be a short coiled particle not like any known natural or synthetic fabric fiber. Subsequent examinations determined this "fiber" to be the larva of a common freshwater midge (Diptera; Chironomidae). Chironomid larvae have been observed on other bodies recovered from freshwater environments. Entomological studies of this organism have led to the conclusion that the presence of chironomid larvae indicates submersion of the body.     

Brief for 885 law professors in support of maintaining adherence to the Roe decision

This brief opposes the overturn of "Roe v. Wade" and resists weakening "Roe's central holding" that would allow states to overturn legal abortion. The brief was written for 885 law professors. "Roe" was not a "constitutional aberration," or "an exercise of raw, judicial power." Some members of the Supreme Court seem to think that the state has "an overriding interest" in protecting fetal life. Some Court members have questioned "Roe's" trimester framework. A person's decision to abort should be done privately. If women are not free to choose abortion, they will not have equality. There is an absence of "express rights of privacy and procreational freedom" in the Constitution. "Roe" was 1 instance of the Court's recognition of constitutional rights that are not named explicitly. Historical materials are drawn on to show the link between trends in society and the "judicial recognition of unenumerated rights." The most serious questions about "Roe" deal with its trimester framework. Justice Blackmun's majority opinion said that the 1st trimester of pregnancy was personal. "Roe" said that abortions created a medical risk at the beginning of the 2nd trimester. Therefore, the government was more interested in the health of the mother at that time. The state could then regulate abortion "in ways that are reasonable related to maternal health." The start of the 3rd trimester was when the fetus was viable. The right of a woman to end her pregnancy "offends powerful moral forces." Some of "Roe's" critics had their scientific facts wrong. Medical authorities think Justice O'Connor is mistaken when she says that "Roe" is "on a collision course with itself." The 23rd to 24th week of pregnancies where the fetal organs can "sustain life outside the womb." This has not changed since "Roe" was decided in 1973, nor is it likely to in the future. Some "amici" believe that the state can never have an interest in the fetus. The state can not have an interest in the fetus distinct from the woman who will give birth to it. During previability, restricting a woman's procreational rights would not be scientifically supportable. The state does have an interest in "upholding the value of human life." "Roe" is "within the mainstream" of constitutional jurisprudence and should be reaffirmed.