During crime scene investigations, numerous traces are secured and may be used as evidence for the evaluation of source and/or activity level propositions. The rapid chemical analysis of a biological trace enables the identification of body fluids and can provide significant donor profiling information, including age, sex, drug abuse, and lifestyle. Such information can be used to provide new leads, exclude from, or restrict the list of possible suspects during the investigative phase. This paper reviews the state-of-the-art labelling techniques to identify the most suitable visual enhancer to be implemented in a lateral flow immunoassay setup for the purpose of trace identification and/or donor profiling. Upon comparison, and with reference to the strengths and limitations of each label, the simplistic one-step analysis of noncompetitive lateral flow immunoassay (LFA) together with the implementation of carbon nanoparticles (CNPs) as visual enhancers is proposed for a sensitive, accurate, and reproducible in situ trace analysis. This approach is versatile and stable over different environmental conditions and external stimuli. The findings of the present comparative analysis may have important implications for future forensic practice. The selection of an appropriate enhancer is crucial for a well-designed LFA that can be implemented at the crime scene for a time- and cost-efficient investigation.
Understanding the factors that may impact the transfer, persistence, prevalence and recovery of DNA (DNA-TPPR), and the availability of data to assign probabilities to DNA quantities and profile types being obtained given particular scenarios and circumstances, is paramount when performing, and giving guidance on, evaluations of DNA findings given activity level propositions (activity level evaluations). In late 2018 and early 2019, three major reviews were published on aspects of DNA-TPPR, with each advocating the need for further research and other actions to support the conduct of DNA-related activity level evaluations. Here, we look at how challenges are being met, primarily by providing a synopsis of DNA-TPPR-related articles published since the conduct of these reviews and briefly exploring some of the actions taken by industry stakeholders towards addressing identified gaps. Much has been carried out in recent years, and efforts continue, to meet the challenges to continually improve the capacity of forensic experts to provide the guidance sought by the judiciary with respect to the transfer of DNA.
Most violence risk assessment tools have been validated predominantly in males. In this multicenter study, the Historical, Clinical, Risk Management–20 (HCR-20), Historical, Clinical, Risk Management–20 Version 3 (HCR-20V3), Female Additional Manual (FAM), Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability (START), Structured Assessment of Protective Factors for violence risk (SAPROF), and Psychopathy Checklist–Revised (PCL-R) were coded on file information of 78 female forensic psychiatric patients discharged between 1993 and 2012 with a mean follow-up period of 11.8 years from one of four Dutch forensic psychiatric hospitals. Notable was the high rate of mortality (17.9%) and readmission to psychiatric settings (11.5%) after discharge. Official reconviction data could be retrieved from the Ministry of Justice and Security for 71 women. Twenty-four women (33.8%) were reconvicted after discharge, including 13 for violent offenses (18.3%). Overall, predictive validity was moderate for all types of recidivism, but low for violence. The START Vulnerability scores, HCR-20V3, and FAM showed the highest predictive accuracy for all recidivism. With respect to violent recidivism, only the START Vulnerability scores and the Clinical scale of the HCR-20V3 demonstrated significant predictive accuracy.
MULTIFILE
