Question 5!
Here comes the most exciting part of the investigation…to
match the evidences collected with their respective victims. Although we still
can’t be 100% sure whether our hypothesis is true, we are coming closer in
resolving the case.
Below is the list of possible victims that might be involved
in this case.
- . Herman Hartono
- . Adi Hartono (son of Herman Hartono)
- . Anya Suriati (9-year old twin sister to Tanya Rosilawati)
So let us start from evidence one! As we have mentioned
above in question 4, the most significant feature we can see from evidence one is
the presence of third molar on both left and right side of the mandible. The
shape of the skull which portrays rounded supraorbital ridge leads us to
conclude that the skull belongs to a male victim. Hence, we can now say that evidence
one can be the remnants of either Herman Hartono or Adi Hartono who have both
reach adulthood.
Evidence 2 shows the presence of three molars on the right
side of the mandible which is a distinct feature of the jaw. Besides, the angle
of the mandible is more acute with a prominent gonial eversion. All these
features lead to the conclusion of a male adult victim. Therefore, there are
only two possible victims that we can consider, which are Herman Hartono and
Adi Hartono.
Evidence 3 shows a child’s mandible with erupted mandibular canine.
Due to the low resolution of the picture, we couldn’t distinguish and confirm
whether the canine is a deciduous or permanent canine until a detailed study of
the tooth morphology is done. However, in this case we can assume that it is a
permanent canine as permanent canine erupts at the age of 9-10 years old.
Besides, Anya is the only possible child victim that we have, thus we can
deduce that this jaw belongs to Anya Suriati who is 9 years old.
In conclusion, the only victim that we can confidently match the
evidences is Anya Suriati. Further investigations certainly need to be done to
differentiate between Herman Hartono and Adi Hartono’s remnants.