Trace DNA success rates relating to volume crime offences
FSI Genetics Supplement Series, 2009
Authors
Journal
FSI Genetics Supplement Series
Study Design
Addressed Question
interpretation of the value of trace DNA in 201 cases of volume crime (burglary, robbery, drugs)
Activity Context
Category
Specifications
Variables of Interest
Stringency of Control
Number of Individuals
252 trace DNA samples from 201 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
crime context
Contact Scenario
crime context (volume crime offences in Australia between May and June 2008)
Primary Substrate
Primary Substrate Type
firearms, packagings, tools, robbery items (wallets, phones), points of entry, other touched items
Primary Substrate Material
Deposit
touch in robbery/burglary/drug 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
Sampling Time
delayed
Persistence
time: 2h-62 days + up to 1yr after submission to lab, conditions n.s.
Sampling Method
double swabbing
Sampling Area
items' surfaces (n.s.)
Laboratory Analysis
Extraction
Qiagen spin columns on BioRobot 8000
DNA Quantification
Quantifiler real time PCR
Input for Profiling
set volume: 10 µl
Profiling
Profiler Plus 28 cycles, ABI Prism 3130xl Genetic Analyzer
Reference Samples
dependent on case
Profile Interpretation and Mixture Analysis
categorization of profiling results: full profile, partial profile (>11 alleles), mixtures, amelogenin locus only, negative
RNA Data Interpretation
N/A
Results
DNA Quantity
average 1.7 ng (firearms: 0.6 ng, packaging: 1.9 ng, points of entry: 0.6 ng, robbery items: 8.0 ng, tools: 2.3 ng, others: 0.7 ng)
Profile Quality
44% no profile, 8% single full profile, 6% partial single profile (>12 alleles), 21% mixed profile
Parameter Used for Comparison
DNA yield in total extract (ng), profile completeness and composition
Summary of Results
16 % of items showed no DNA; Sampling most successful from robbery items and least successful from firearms, packaging and touched items; Profile quality and quantity were not significantly related to the time before sampling or between sampling and admission to the laboratory;
Raised Questions
low success rates for profiling from firearms surprising as handling requires time and repeated contact; regular data collection would be beneficial in terms of policy direction, method application and training needs
Cautionary Remarks
longer time span and larger sample size would have been interesting but is apparently difficult due to the way the data is collected in Australia; the large number of variables affecting recovery from casework samples might reduce the ability to see the effect of a single variable such as time; time spans and conditions during delay (if known) n.s.; Profile origin (offender vs. not crime-related individual) n.a.