dnatrack is a work in progress — updates ship daily. Report a bug or request a feature →

The Value of DNA Material Recovered from Crime Scenes

Journal of Forensic Sciences, 2008

Authors

Journal

Journal of Forensic Sciences


Study Design

Addressed Question

statistical analysis of factors predicting DNA analysis success rates in casework (residential burglary, commercial burglary, motor vehicle theft, Northamptonshire, U.K., 2006)

Activity Context

BurglaryCaseworkTheft

Category

PersistencePrimary DepositRecovery

Specifications

Bodily OriginPersistence with TimeSampling

Variables of Interest

trace typethe crime scene examiner's accreditationoffence type (burglary or vehicle crime)sample condition (poor: damp, wet, dirty; good: dry, frozen, clean)

Stringency of Control

Reality

Number of Individuals

1442 pieces of DNA material

Replicates per Individual and Condition

1

Nucleic Acid

DNA

Bodily Origin

bloodsalivatrace

Depositor & Contact

Depositor Characteristics

N/A

Criteria for Shedder Status

N/A

Previous Activities

N/A

Contact Scenario

casework: residential burglary, commercial burglary, motor vehicle theft, Northamptonshire, U.K., 2006

Primary Substrate

Primary Substrate Type

various items encountered at volume crime scenes: blood stains, cigarette ends, saliva stains on drinking vessels, scarves, balaclavas and others, chewing gum, swabs from surfaces the offender is thought to have contacted

Primary Substrate Material

Various

Deposit

during volume crime offence

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

Present

Sampling Time

direct, delayed

Persistence

depending on casework circumstances (mean time from crime being reported to DNA match: 14.6 days)

Sampling Method

performed by Crime Scene Examiner (details n.s.)

Sampling Area

N/A

Laboratory Analysis

Extraction

N/A

DNA Quantification

N/A

Input for Profiling

N/A

Profiling

N/A

Reference Samples

N/A

Profile Interpretation and Mixture Analysis

upload of DNA profiles to NDNADB, counted as a match if profile matches with a named individual already in the database

RNA Data Interpretation

N/A

Results

DNA Quantity

N/A

Profile Quality

890 produced DNA profiles resulting in 546 matches from 1442 separate pieces of DNA material

Parameter Used for Comparison

profiles suitable for NDNADB upload (criteria n.s.), DNA match (profile matches with a named individual already in the database)

Summary of Results

saliva (including drinking vessels, cigarette ends, chewing gums,…) was numerically the largest source of DNA recovered from crime scenes; blood and saliva on cigarette ends showed the highest percentages of samples recovered suitable for database loading (>82%) and blood samples showed the highest percentages of loaded samples producing a match (>79%), whereas cellular DNA (trace DNA) showed the lowest percentage of samples suitable for database loading (20.5%) and chewing gum showed the lowest percentage of loaded samples producing a database match (18.5%, with most chewing gum samples located outside of the crime scene or in communal areas and thus often not crime related); a logistical regression considering the crime scene examiner's accreditation, offence type (burglary or vehicle crime), sample condition (poor: damp, wet, dirty; good: dry, frozen, clean) showed: the crime scene examiner's accreditation for all DNA sources significantly influenced whether DNA profiles were loadable to the NDNADB (thus, recovery of DNA rich material), the offence type did not significantly affect profiling success accept for cigarette ends, which more often produced a profile in burglary offences compared to vehicle offences (reason: in vehicle offences, cigarette ends were more often recovered from ash trays with a higher risk of contamination), a good sample condition significantly improved profiling outcome for cigarette ends and cellular sources (trace DNA), the DNA-profile-to-match-regression showed no significance for any of the predictors

Raised Questions

N/A

Cautionary Remarks

casework data, thus ground truth regarding the true trace contributors and the pathways of DNA trace deposit unknown; methodological factors most likely influencing DNA profiling success rates n.s. and not considered in analysis