Touch DNA Collection Versus Firearm Fingerprinting: Comparing Evidence Production and Identification Outcomes.
Journal of Forensic Sciences, 2013
Study Design
Addressed Question
comparison of touch DNA collection vs. Fingerprinting from firearms concerning quantity of probative or investigative evidence and identification outcomes
Activity Context
Category
Specifications
N/A
Variables of Interest
Stringency of Control
Number of Individuals
160 touch DNA collection cases (TriggerPro), 147 fingerprinting 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
N/A
Contact Scenario
crime context (samples taken from real case evidence in the IMPD East district in the period of 07-2007 till 08-2009
Primary Substrate
Primary Substrate Type
firearms
Primary Substrate Material
N/A
Deposit
case context
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
n.s. (most likely delayed)
Persistence
N/A
Sampling Method
TriggerPro kit (wet swabbing) applied by police staff
Sampling Area
locations from which swabs samples were taken not reported
Laboratory Analysis
Extraction
N/A
DNA Quantification
N/A
Input for Profiling
N/A
Profiling
N/A
Reference Samples
not taken
Profile Interpretation and Mixture Analysis
profile classification: viable profile: useful information; inconclusive: no results, uninterpretable results or no standard available for testing; single source profiles, mixed profiles (complete or partial); match classification: no match, match, reference profile cannot be excluded as source
RNA Data Interpretation
N/A
Results
DNA Quantity
N/A
Profile Quality
42% mixtures, 36% single source partial profiles, 5% single source complete profiles, 35% no usable profile
Parameter Used for Comparison
Production of forensic evidence (composition of DNA profile) and use of evidence for identification in the case-context
Summary of Results
104/160 TriggerPro cases produced a DNA profile, in 2.5% of cases individualized identification, 9.4% of cases produced profiles in which a POI could not be excluded as contributor (more profiles might have a values in future searches); differences in outcomes between fingerprint and touch DNA collection: touch DNA produced a large volume of evidence, but identification outcomes were not statistically different; Conclusion: with respect to costs and turnaround time, fingerprinting analysis might be better suited than touch DNA collection
Raised Questions
should touch DNA collection be performed by police officers or trained technicians?
Cautionary Remarks
Circumstances not 100% realistic as firearms (in the TriggerPro study) were swabbed that would not have been swabbed under normal circumstances and swabbers were not trained; locations on firearms from which samples were taken and methods used to recover DNA not shown