Correspondence

A response to Meakin and Jamieson DNA transfer: Review and implications for casework

Items of worn clothing are routinely examined for DNA in forensic casework, commonly with the expectation that at least some of the DNA will come from a wearer of the item, so-called ‘wearer DNA’. This study investigated DNA recovered from hooded jumpers that were regularly worn and laundered for four weeks and then subsequently worn by a different individual for four hours. This study also systematically investigated whether using different recovery methods or sampling locations on the jumpers might distinguish between DNA deposited by the regular and most recent wearers of clothing. Four volunteers each wore a new hooded jumper regularly (6 h/day, 2 days/week, washed at weekends) during two 4-week periods. At the end of each month, DNA was first recovered by cutting out and mini-taping the inside left cuff, half-collar, pocket and underarm fabric. The jumpers were then worn by a different individual for four hours, and DNA was again recovered by cutting out and mini-taping, but this time from the inside right cuff, half-collar, pocket and underarm fabric. All DNA samples (n = 128) were quantified and profiled. DNA quantities ranged from 0 to ∼40 ng with an outlier of ∼150 ng, and no significant differences were observed among recovery methods and sampling locations, nor whether one or two wearers had worn the jumpers. However, one volunteer consistently deposited significantly more DNA to their jumpers than two other volunteers, confirming the impact of ‘shedder status’ on DNA deposition during wearing of clothing. When jumpers were regularly worn by one wearer, the majority (72.7–83.3 %) of the samples for all wearers across both months comprised a major profile of the wearer with a minor profile of non-wearer alleles. When jumpers were then worn by a second wearer, the composition of the profiles obtained were generally reproducible across the recovery methods used, the sampling locations and the two replicates of the experiment for each pairing of wearers. However, profile compositions differed between wearer pairings. Overall, ∼60 % of profiles obtained gave a major profile of the regular wearer, whereas ∼30 % gave a major profile of the second wearer. The remaining profiles comprised other much less frequent observations of single-source profiles of each wearer and equal proportions of DNA from both wearers. Non-wearer DNA was also observed in the majority of samples, both before and after jumpers were worn by a second wearer. For one volunteer’s jumpers, a recurring non-wearer DNA profile was observed that could be attributed to their romantic partner, and this DNA persisted on the jumpers even after being worn by the second wearer. This study provides insight on the impact of shedder status, multiple wearers, different recovery methods and sampling locations on the quantities of DNA and compositions of DNA profiles recovered from authentically regularly-worn hooded jumpers. The findings also provide a preliminary dataset that can be used to infer activity level probabilities in casework.

Much good quality research by pre-doctoral students and case-work focused practitioners remains unpublished. However, their findings could contribute to the evidence base underpinning science and practice within international justice system contexts. There are two main challenges to making findings accessible: reaching all criminal justice stakeholders, and encouraging collaborative efforts in research addressing ‘real world’ problems.

This article presents the rationale for a new, open access repository. The aim is to share good quality pre-doctoral and practitioner criminal justice research across traditional disciplinary and international borders. Such a repository should be easy to use, well maintained and sustainable. Its reach, value and impact also need to be measurable. We present the major considerations relating to the operation and workflow of such a repository, and outline the potential value, benefits and limitations. Our research suggests that the proposed repository could foster interdisciplinary and collaborative work to benefit global justice systems and societies.

Since DNA from touched items and surfaces (“touch DNA”) can successfully and reliably be analyzed, the question as to how a particular DNA containing sample came to be from where it was recovered is of increasing forensic interest and expert witnesses in court are increasingly challenged to assess for instance whether an incriminatory DNA sample matching to a suspect could have been transferred to the crime scene in an innocent manner and to guess at the probability of such an occurrence. The latter however will frequently entail expressing a subjective probability i.e. simply making a best guess from experience.

There is, to the present date, an extensive and complex body of literature on primary, secondary, tertiary and even higher order DNA transfer, its possibility, plausibility, dependency on an array of variables and factors and vast numbers of permutations thereof. However, from our point of view there is a lack of systematic data on DNA transfer with existing research widely varying in quality and relevance.

Our aim was, starting from a comprehensive survey of the status quo and appreciating its increasing importance, to in the first part of our review raise consciousness towards the underestimated and insufficiently accounted for complexity of DNA transfer and thus appendant research of forensic scientists serving as expert witnesses in court but also acting in the role of a journal referee to point them to areas of criticism when reviewing a manuscript on DNA transfer. In the second part, we present propositions how to systematize and integrate future research efforts concerning DNA transfer.

Also, we present a searchable database providing an extensive overview of the current state of knowledge on DNA transfer, intended to facilitate the identification of relevant studies adding knowledge to a specific question and thus help forensic experts to base their opinion on a broader, more complete and more reproducible selection of studies.

Understanding the variables impacting DNA transfer, persistence, prevalence and recovery (DNA-TPPR) has become increasingly relevant in investigations of criminal activities to provide opinion on how the DNA of a person of interest became present within the sample collected. This review considers our current knowledge regarding DNA-TPPR to assist casework investigations of criminal activities. There is a growing amount of information available on DNA-TPPR to inform the relative probabilities of the evidence given alternative scenarios relating to the presence or absence of DNA from a specific person in a collected sample of interest. This information should be used where relevant. However, far more research is still required to better understand the variables impacting DNA-TPPR and to generate more accurate probability estimates of generating particular types of profiles in more casework relevant situations. This review explores means of achieving this. It also notes the need for all those interacting with an item of interest to have an awareness of DNA transfer possibilities post criminal activity, to limit the risk of contamination or loss of DNA.

Appropriately trained forensic practitioners are best placed to provide opinion and guidance on the interpretation of profiles at the activity level. However, those requested to provide expert opinion on DNA-related activity level issues are often insufficiently trained to do so. We advocate recognition of DNA activity associated expertise to be distinct from expertise associated with the identification of individuals. This is to be supported by dedicated training, competency testing, authorisation, and regular fit for purpose proficiency testing.

The possibilities for experts to report on activity-related issues will increase as our knowledge increases through further research, access to relevant data is enhanced, and tools to assist interpretations are better exploited. Improvement opportunities will be achieved sooner, if more laboratories and agencies accept the need to invest in these aspects as well as the training of practitioners.

There has been a call for forensic science to actively return to the approach of scientific endeavour. The importance of incorporating an awareness of the requirements of the law in its broadest sense, and embedding research into both practice and policy within forensic science, is arguably critical to achieving such an endeavour. This paper presents a conceptual model (FoRTE) that outlines the holistic nature of trace evidence in the ‘endeavour’ of forensic reconstruction. This model offers insights into the different components intrinsic to transparent, reproducible and robust reconstructions in forensic science. The importance of situating evidence within the whole forensic science process (from crime scene to court), of developing evidence bases to underpin each stage, of frameworks that offer insights to the interaction of different lines of evidence, and the role of expertise in decision making are presented and their interactions identified. It is argued that such a conceptual model has value in identifying the future steps for harnessing the value of trace evidence in forensic reconstruction. It also highlights that there is a need to develop a nuanced approach to reconstructions that incorporates both empirical evidence bases and expertise. A conceptual understanding has the potential to ensure that the endeavour of forensic reconstruction has its roots in ‘problem-solving’ science, and can offer transparency and clarity in the conclusions and inferences drawn from trace evidence, thereby enabling the value of trace evidence to be realised in investigations and the courts.

DNA is routinely recovered in criminal investigations. The sensitivity of laboratory equipment and DNA profiling kits means that it is possible to generate DNA profiles from very small amounts of cellular material. As a consequence, it has been shown that DNA we detect may not have arisen from a direct contact with an item, but rather through one or more intermediaries. Naturally the questions arising in court, particularly when considering trace DNA, are of how DNA may have come to be on an item. While scientists cannot directly answer this question, forensic biological results can help in discriminating between alleged activities. Much experimental research has been published showing the transfer and persistence of DNA under varying conditions, but as of yet the results of these studies have not been combined to deal with broad questions about transfer mechanisms. In this work we use published data and Bayesian networks to develop a statistical logical framework by which questions of transfer mechanism can be approached probabilistically. We also identify a number of areas where further work could be carried out in order to improve our knowledge base when helping to address questions about transfer mechanisms. Finally, we apply the constructed Bayesian network to ground truth known data to determine if, with current knowledge, there is any power in DNA quantities to distinguish primary and secondary transfer events.