Search

Sampling strategy is one of the deciding factors in DNA typing success rates. Small amounts of bodily fluid traces and (skin) contact traces are currently not visualized in standard forensic practice. Trace recovery is usually based on the information available in a particular case and on the experience and 'forensic common sense' applied by the trace recovery expert. Interactions between an offender and a victim may have characteristic features, resulting in specific trace patterns. Understanding these interactions, and their resulting trace patterns, might improve crime related trace recovery as well as DNA typing success rates. In this study, we examined the interactions between offender and victim when a body has been relocated from one position/location to another. The contact between the hands of the offender and the body of the victim was visualized using a fluorescent dye in a lotion that was applied to the hands of the individual undertaking the relocation. The contact locations were scored and patterns were analyzed based on both victim and offender characteristics (height, weight, age, gender). The resulting patterns were compared to current trace recovery practices in the Netherlands. The results of this large-scale study facilitate evidence-based sampling supporting both investigative and evaluative forensic examinations., (Copyright © 2018 The Chartered Society of Forensic Sciences. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Forensic DNA casework is currently regarded as one of the most important types of forensic evidence, and important decisions in intelligence and justice are based on it. However, errors occasionally occur and may have very serious consequences. In other domains, error rates have been defined and published. The forensic domain is lagging behind concerning this transparency for various reasons. In this paper we provide definitions and observed frequencies for different types of errors at the Human Biological Traces Department of the Netherlands Forensic Institute (NFI) over the years 2008-2012. Furthermore, we assess their actual and potential impact and describe how the NFI deals with the communication of these numbers to the legal justice system. We conclude that the observed relative frequency of quality failures is comparable to studies from clinical laboratories and genetic testing centres. Furthermore, this frequency is constant over the five-year study period. The most common causes of failures related to the laboratory process were contamination and human error. Most human errors could be corrected, whereas gross contamination in crime samples often resulted in irreversible consequences. Hence this type of contamination is identified as the most significant source of error. Of the known contamination incidents, most were detected by the NFI quality control system before the report was issued to the authorities, and thus did not lead to flawed decisions like false convictions. However in a very limited number of cases crucial errors were detected after the report was issued, sometimes with severe consequences. Many of these errors were made in the post-analytical phase. The error rates reported in this paper are useful for quality improvement and benchmarking, and contribute to an open research culture that promotes public trust. However, they are irrelevant in the context of a particular case. Here case-specific probabilities of undetected errors are needed. These should be reported, separately from the match probability, when requested by the court or when there are internal or external indications for error. It should also be made clear that there are various other issues to consider, like DNA transfer. Forensic statistical models, in particular Bayesian networks, may be useful to take the various uncertainties into account and demonstrate their effects on the evidential value of the forensic DNA results., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Does the evidential strength of a DNA match depend on whether the suspect was identified through database search or through other evidence ("probable cause")? In Balding and Donnelly (1995, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A 158, 21-53) and elsewhere, it has been argued that the evidential strength is slightly larger in a database search case than in a probable cause case, while Stockmarr (1999, Biometrics 55, 671-677) reached the opposite conclusion. Both these approaches use likelihood ratios. By making an excursion to a similar problem, the two-stain problem, we argue in this article that there are certain fundamental difficulties with the use of a likelihood ratio, which can be avoided by concentrating on the posterior odds. This approach helps resolving the above-mentioned conflict.

The introduction of DNA evidence has transformed human individualization in criminal litigation, but it also introduced daunting statistical, philosophical and practical problems into the process. The current practice in many legal cases is that a forensic expert reports a match probability or a likelihood ratio. However, the value of the likelihood ratio depends on the particular hypotheses used by the expert. Often there are various choices possible for the hypotheses used, and the corresponding likelihood ratios for different hypotheses are typically different. We therefore argue that the findings of an expert should not be given with a single number, and that any report with a match probability or likelihood ratio should be accompanied by a discussion of the effect of these numbers. We suggest a way to do this, using the so‐called posterior odds, which are invariant under various sets of hypotheses. Our approach is applicable in legal systems where the judge or jury is not allowed to know that the suspect was in a database. However, juridical problems may arise when courts insist on, for example, only a frequency estimate to be reported. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Does the evidential strength of a DNA match depend on whether the suspect was identified through database search or through other evidence ("probable cause")? In Balding and Donnelly (1995, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A 158, 21-53) and elsewhere, it has been argued that the evidential strength is slightly larger in a database search case than in a probable cause case, while Stockmarr (1999, Biometrics 55, 671-677) reached the opposite conclusion. Both these approaches use likelihood ratios. By making an excursion to a similar problem,the two-stain problem, we argue in this article that there are certain fundamental difficulties with the use of a likelihood ratio, which can be avoided by concentrating on the posterior odds. This approach helps resolving the above-mentioned conflict. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]