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.
DOCUMENT
In this study, we assessed to what extent data on the subject of TPPR (transfer, persistence, prevalence, recovery) that are obtained through an older STR typing kit can be used in an activity-level evaluation for a case profiled with a more modern STR kit. Newer kits generally hold more loci and may show higher sensitivity especially when reduced reaction volumes are used, and this could increase the evidential value at the source level. On the other hand, the increased genotyping information may invoke a higher number of contributors in the weight of evidence calculations, which could affect the evidential values as well. An activity scenario well explored in earlier studies [1,2] was redone using volunteers with known DNA profiles. DNA extracts were analyzed with three different approaches, namely using the optimal DNA input for (1) an older and (2) a newer STR typing system, and (3) using a standard, volume-based input combined with replicate PCR analysis with only the newer STR kit. The genotyping results were analyzed for various aspects such as percentage detected alleles and relative peak height contribution for background and the contributors known to be involved in the activity. Next, source-level LRs were calculated and the same trends were observed with regard to inclusionary and exclusionary LRs for persons who had or had not been in direct contact with the sampled areas. We subsequently assessed the impact on the outcome of the activity-level evaluation in an exemplary case by applying the assigned probabilities to a Bayesian network. We infer that data from different STR kits can be combined in the activity-level evaluations.
DOCUMENT
There appears to be some hesitation within the forensic biology community to formally evaluate and report on findings given activity level propositions. This hesitance in part stems from concerns about the lack of relevant data on the dynamics of biological traces and doubt about the relevance of such expert opinions to the trier of fact. At the Netherlands Forensic Institute formal evaluative opinions on the probability of case findings given propositions at the activity level are provided since 2013, if requested by a mandating authority. In this study we share the results from a retrospective analysis of 74 of such requests. We explore which party initiates requests, the types of cases that are submitted, the sources of data being used to assign probabilities to DNA transfer, persistence, prevalence and recovery (TPPR) events, the conclusions that were drawn by the scientists, and how the conclusions were used by the courts. This retrospective analysis of cases demonstrates that published sources of data are generally available and can be used to address DNA TPPR events in most cases, although significant gaps still remain. The study furthermore shows that reporting on forensic biology findings given activity level propositions has been generally accepted by the district and appeal courts, as well as the other parties in the criminal justice system in the Netherlands.
DOCUMENT
