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

Touch DNA Collection Versus Firearm Fingerprinting: Comparing Evidence Production and Identification Outcomes.

Journal of Forensic Sciences, 2013

Authors

Journal

Journal of Forensic Sciences


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

CaseworkShooting

Category

Primary Deposit

Specifications

N/A

Variables of Interest

cases in which either fingerprinting or touch DNA collection was used

Stringency of Control

Reality

Number of Individuals

160 touch DNA collection cases (TriggerPro), 147 fingerprinting cases

Replicates per Individual and Condition

1

Nucleic Acid

DNA

Bodily Origin

trace

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

Present

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