Already for some decades lateral flow assays (LFAs) are ‘common use’ devices in our daily life. Also, for forensic use LFAs are developed, such as for the analysis of illicit drugs and DNA, but also for the detection of explosives and body fluid identification. Despite their advantages, including ease-of-use, LFAs are not yet frequently applied at a crime scene. This review describes (academic) developments of LFAs for forensic applications, focusing on biological and chemical applications, whereby the main advantages and disadvantages of LFAs for the different forensic applications are summarized. Additionally, a critical review is provided, discussing why LFAs are not frequently applied within the forensic field and highlighting the steps that are needed to bring LFAs to the forensic market.
Considering activity level propositions in the evaluation of forensic biology findings is becoming more common place. There are increasing numbers of publications demonstrating different transfer mechanisms that can occur under a variety of circumstances. Some of these publications have shown the possibility of DNA transfer from site to site on an exhibit, for instance as a result of packaging and transport. If such a possibility exists, and the case circumstances are such that the area on an exhibit where DNA is present or absent is an observation that is an important diagnostic characteristic given the propositions, then site to site transfer should be taken into account during the evaluation of observations. In this work we demonstrate the ways in which site to site transfer can be built into Bayesian networks when carrying out activity level evaluations of forensic biology findings. We explore the effects of considering qualitative vs quantitative categorisation of DNA results. We also show the importance of taking into account multiple individual’s DNA being transferred (such as unknown or wearer DNA), even if the main focus of the evaluation is the activity of one individual.
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.
