The Effectiveness of Trace DNA Profiling—A Comparison Between a U.S. and a U.K. Law Enforcement Jurisdiction.
Journal of Forensic Sciences, 2017
Authors
Journal
Journal of Forensic Sciences
Study Design
Addressed Question
trace DNA profiling comparison between US crime laboratory and UK police force in 2014
Activity Context
Category
Specifications
Variables of Interest
Stringency of Control
Number of Individuals
659 items from 279 cases
Replicates per Individual and Condition
1
Nucleic Acid
Bodily Origin
Depositor & Contact
Depositor Characteristics
N/A
Criteria for Shedder Status
N/A
Previous Activities
case context
Contact Scenario
case context - sampling
Primary Substrate
Primary Substrate Type
Cartridges, Firearms, Gearshift, objects, points of entry, restraint, steering wheel, surface, tool, Blade, handles, trigger, entire surface, vehicle exterior, vehicle interior
Primary Substrate Material
Deposit
use/touch in crime scenario
Delay
N/A
Secondary Substrate
Secondary Substrate Type
N/A
Secondary Substrate Material
N/A
Secondary Substrate Contact
N/A
Further Transfer
N/A
Sampling
Background DNA on Sampled Surface
Sampling Time
delayed (n.s.)
Persistence
N/A
Sampling Method
mostly single or double swabbing, tapelifting in selected cases, either at the crime scene or in the laboratory
Sampling Area
depending on item, not further specified
Laboratory Analysis
Extraction
N/A
DNA Quantification
N/A
Input for Profiling
N/A
Profiling
N/A
Reference Samples
dependent on case
Profile Interpretation and Mixture Analysis
subtraction of elimination reference profile if present
RNA Data Interpretation
N/A
Results
DNA Quantity
N/A
Profile Quality
varying
Parameter Used for Comparison
production of potentially useful profiles (single, mixed, partial profiles or complex mixtures); % of useful profiles loaded onto database; % of loaded profiles giving an association
Summary of Results
No significant difference between the number of potentially useful profiles obtained from single or multiple swabbing; percentage producing useful profile: 0-85% ; percentage loaded on database: 0-65% , reasons for not loading: low profile quality, consistency with victim profile, other item loaded in preference; percentage loaded with association: 30-100%; UK vs. US: US mostly laboratory examinations and UK mostly examinations at the crime scene, US mostly firearm related samples, UK mostly burglary and theft related items; conclusion: effective trace DNA profiling depends on selection of relevant items, trace DNA recovery technique
Raised Questions
further research into whether double swabbing and pooling of swabs is really an improvement
Cautionary Remarks
multifactorial dataset but many factors (e.g. time period before sampling, extraction or profiling methods, sampling site,…) not taken into account; criteria to decide whether a profile is potentially useful not entirely clear