Opportunistic crimes: Evaluation of DNA from regularly-used knives after a brief use by a different person

Transfer and persistence of intruder DNA within an office after reuse by owner

The heightened sensitivity of DNA typing techniques, paired with the extensive use of trace DNA in forensic investigations, has resulted in an increased need to understand how and when DNA is deposited on surfaces of interest. This study focussed on the transfer, persistence, and prevalence of trace DNA in a single occupation of an office space by an intruder, when all contacts made during occupation and for the two hours prior and post occupation were known. The extent to which DNA could be recovered from contacted/not contacted surfaces was investigated. This study investigates the impacts of these movements and use of an office space when the duration of occupancy, surface contact histories and shedder status of participants are known. Contacts were documented and surfaces in the office space were targeted for sampling. Categories were set for target sampling that included different types of contact. Direct and indirect DNA transfer was detected in 55 % and 6 % of samples, respectively. Contactless DNA transfer was detected in 0.5 % of samples. The owner was observed as the sole/major/majority contributor in 77 % of the samples and as minor contributor in 10 % of samples. The intruder was observed as the sole/major/majority contributor in 14 % of samples and as the minor contributor in 16 %. An increased number of contacts increased the relative DNA contribution of the individual making the contact, however, not all observed direct contacts resulted in detectable DNA transfer. The outcome of this study will aid in better sample targeting strategies and contribute to the pool of data assisting in the development of activity level assessments.

The role of cats in human DNA transfer

Domestic animals, such as cats and dogs, are present in the majority of Australian households. Recently, questions regarding the possibility that domestic animals can serve as silent witnesses, from whom evidence can be collected, or act as vectors of contamination and transfer, have started to be raised. Yet, little is known regarding the transfer and prevalence of human DNA to and from cats. This study investigated if cats are reservoirs and vectors for human DNA transfer. Twenty cats from 15 households were sampled from 4 different areas (head (fur), back (fur), left (skin) and right (fur)) to obtain information on the background DNA that may be found on an animal. Further, transfer of human DNA to and from an animal, after a short patting contact, was tested. Human DNA was found to be prevalent on all cats. Of the areas sampled, most DNA was collected from the top of the fur from the back followed by the head and right/fur. No or very low quantities of human DNA was recovered from the left (skin) area. Most of the human DNA originated from the owners, but DNA from others was also often present (47 % of samples). Further, the transfer tests demonstrated that human DNA transferred readily to (detected in 45 % of samples) and from (detected in 80 % of samples) cats during patting. These results show that animals can act as reservoirs of human DNA and vectors for human DNA transfer that may need to be considered during evaluative DNA reporting. Furthermore, if an interaction between an animal and a perpetrator is suspected, consideration should be given to collecting DNA evidence from suspected contact areas on an animal.

Comparison of DNA recovery methods and locations from regularly-worn hooded jumpers before and after use by a second wearer

Items of worn clothing are routinely examined for DNA in forensic casework, commonly with the expectation that at least some of the DNA will come from a wearer of the item, so-called 'wearer DNA'. This study investigated DNA recovered from hooded jumpers that were regularly worn and laundered for four weeks and then subsequently worn by a different individual for four hours. This study also systematically investigated whether using different recovery methods or sampling locations on the jumpers might distinguish between DNA deposited by the regular and most recent wearers of clothing. Four volunteers each wore a new hooded jumper regularly (6 h/day, 2 days/week, washed at weekends) during two 4-week periods. At the end of each month, DNA was first recovered by cutting out and mini-taping the inside left cuff, half-collar, pocket and underarm fabric. The jumpers were then worn by a different individual for four hours, and DNA was again recovered by cutting out and mini-taping, but this time from the inside right cuff, half-collar, pocket and underarm fabric. All DNA samples (n = 128) were quantified and profiled. DNA quantities ranged from 0 to ∼40 ng with an outlier of ∼150 ng, and no significant differences were observed among recovery methods and sampling locations, nor whether one or two wearers had worn the jumpers. However, one volunteer consistently deposited significantly more DNA to their jumpers than two other volunteers, confirming the impact of 'shedder status' on DNA deposition during wearing of clothing. When jumpers were regularly worn by one wearer, the majority (72.7-83.3 %) of the samples for all wearers across both months comprised a major profile of the wearer with a minor profile of non-wearer alleles. When jumpers were then worn by a second wearer, the composition of the profiles obtained were generally reproducible across the recovery methods used, the sampling locations and the two replicates of the experiment for each pairing of wearers. However, profile compositions differed between wearer pairings. Overall, ∼60 % of profiles obtained gave a major profile of the regular wearer, whereas ∼30 % gave a major profile of the second wearer. The remaining profiles comprised other much less frequent observations of single-source profiles of each wearer and equal proportions of DNA from both wearers. Non-wearer DNA was also observed in the majority of samples, both before and after jumpers were worn by a second wearer. For one volunteer's jumpers, a recurring non-wearer DNA profile was observed that could be attributed to their romantic partner, and this DNA persisted on the jumpers even after being worn by the second wearer. This study provides insight on the impact of shedder status, multiple wearers, different recovery methods and sampling locations on the quantities of DNA and compositions of DNA profiles recovered from authentically regularly-worn hooded jumpers. The findings also provide a preliminary dataset that can be used to infer activity level probabilities in casework.

Indirect DNA Transfer and Forensic Implications: A Literature Review

Progress in DNA profiling techniques has made it possible to detect even the minimum amount of DNA at a crime scene (i.e., a complete DNA profile can be produced using as little as 100 pg of DNA, equivalent to only 15-20 human cells), leading to new defense strategies. While the evidence of a DNA trace is seldom challenged in court by a defendant's legal team, concerns are often raised about how the DNA was transferred to the location of the crime. This review aims to provide an up-to-date overview of the experimental work carried out focusing on indirect DNA transfer, analyzing each selected paper, the experimental method, the sampling technique, the extraction protocol, and the main results. Scopus and Web of Science databases were used as the search engines, including 49 papers. Based on the results of this review, one of the factors that influence secondary transfer is the amount of DNA shed by different individuals. Another factor is the type and duration of contact between individuals or objects (generally, more intimate or prolonged contact results in more DNA transfer). A third factor is the nature and quality of the DNA source. However, there are exceptions and variations depending on individual characteristics and environmental conditions. Considering that secondary transfer depends on multiple factors that interact with each other in unpredictable ways, it should be considered a complex and dynamic phenomenon that can affect forensic investigation in various ways, for example, placing a subject at a crime scene who has never been there. Correct methods and protocols are required to detect and prevent secondary transfer from compromising forensic evidence, as well as the correct interpretation through Bayesian networks. In this context, the definition of well-designed experimental studies combined with the use of new forensic techniques could improve our knowledge in this challenging field, reinforcing the value of DNA evidence in criminal trials.

Bloodstain pattern analysis & Bayes: A case report

The findings from a bloodstain pattern analysis (BPA) may assist in formulating or falsifying scenarios that are considered in the investigative stages of a criminal investigation. When a case proceeds to trial the bloodstain pattern expert may be asked about the relevance of their findings given scenarios that are proposed by the prosecution and defense counsel. Such opinions provided by an expert are highly relevant to police investigation or legal proceedings, but the reasoning behind the opinion or implicit assumptions made by the expert may not be transparent. A proper framework for the evaluation of forensic findings has been developed since the late twentieth century, based on the hierarchy of propositions, Bayesian reasoning and a model for case assessment and interpretation. This framework, when implemented in casework, mitigates some of the risks of cognitive biases, and makes the reasoning and scientific basis for the opinion transparent. This framework is broadly used across forensic science disciplines. In this paper we describe its application to the field of BPA using a case example from the Netherlands Forensic Institute (NFI).

DNA transfer to placed, stored, and handled drug packaging and knives in houses

Forensic laboratories often sample weapons and clip-seal plastic bags (CSPB) used to package illicit material for the purpose of identifying the handler(s). However, there may be other explanations as to how a person's DNA was transferred to such items. This may include an individual storing the item among their personal belongings for somebody else or the item being stored among their belongings without their knowledge. Here we investigate the direct transfer of DNA to knives and CSPB during handling and explore two feasible alternative explanations related to the indirect transfer of DNA to these items in residential environments. The handling of DNA-free items was performed by 10 individuals who were instructed, on separate occasions, to cut a foam board in half and fill a CSPB with a drug substitute. To explore indirect transfer, sets of these items were (a) placed on kitchen benches and coffee/dining tables for ∼1 min, or (b) stored for two days in kitchen and bedroom drawers within the homes of 10 individuals. After each of the three scenarios, samples were collected from the knife handle and blade, the body and seal of the CSPB, and the surface the items were placed on, the latter as a measure to gain insight into the presence of prevalent and/or background DNA. DNA transfer was observed under all three scenarios, though more frequently when items were handled or stored for 2 days, compared to when placed on a surface for ∼1 min. Under the latter scenario, DNA, if present, was below the level of detection in many samples and produced no profile, suggesting that detectable DNA transfer occurs to a lesser degree from static brief contacts. The study results and associated probabilities will assist forensic examiners with their interpretation of case circumstances regarding the transfer and recovery of DNA from these items.

How changes to the substrate's physical characteristics can influence the deposition of touch and salivary deposits

An in-depth study into the physical substrate characteristics such as substrate surface roughness, topography, and physicochemical characteristics like wettability and surface free energy (SFE) was conducted to investigate the impact on the deposition and adherence of touch and salivary deposits on aluminium and polypropylene. A robust protocol was established to generate a set of substrates with a controlled linear surface roughness range (0.5-3.5 µm) in order to identify the impact of surface roughness on DNA transfer, persistence, prevalence, and recovery (DNA-TPPR). The polypropylene substrate was shown to produce fibres when artificially roughened, becoming more prominent at a higher surface roughness range, and has shown to have a direct impact on the distribution of salivary and touch deposits. At the low to moderate surface roughness range 0.5-2.0 µm, salivary and touch deposits have generally shown to follow the topographical features of the substrate they were deposited on, before a plateau of the surface roughness measure on the deposit was observed, indicating that a saturation point was reached and the grooves in the substrate were beginning to fill. Touch deposits have shown to maintain a consistent deposition height pre-surface roughness threshold, irrespective of substrate surface roughness while the deposition height of salivary deposits was heavily influenced by substrate surface roughness and topography. The substrate SFE, wettability, hydrophobicity, and the surface tension of the deposit was shown to drive the adhesion properties of the saliva and touch deposits on the respective substrates, and it was observed that this may be of importance for the improvement of the current DNA-TPPR understanding, DNA sampling protocols, and DNA transfer considerations within casework.

Recent advances in forensic biology and forensic DNA typing: INTERPOL review 2019-2022

This review paper covers the forensic-relevant literature in biological sciences from 2019 to 2022 as a part of the 20th INTERPOL International Forensic Science Managers Symposium. Topics reviewed include rapid DNA testing, using law enforcement DNA databases plus investigative genetic genealogy DNA databases along with privacy/ethical issues, forensic biology and body fluid identification, DNA extraction and typing methods, mixture interpretation involving probabilistic genotyping software (PGS), DNA transfer and activity-level evaluations, next-generation sequencing (NGS), DNA phenotyping, lineage markers (Y-chromosome, mitochondrial DNA, X-chromosome), new markers and approaches (microhaplotypes, proteomics, and microbial DNA), kinship analysis and human identification with disaster victim identification (DVI), and non-human DNA testing including wildlife forensics. Available books and review articles are summarized as well as 70 guidance documents to assist in quality control that were published in the past three years by various groups within the United States and around the world.

Touch DNA Sampling Methods: Efficacy Evaluation and Systematic Review

Collection and interpretation of "touch DNA" from crime scenes represent crucial steps during criminal investigations, with clear consequences in courtrooms. Although the main aspects of this type of evidence have been extensively studied, some controversial issues remain. For instance, there is no conclusive evidence indicating which sampling method results in the highest rate of biological material recovery. Thus, this study aimed to describe the actual considerations on touch DNA and to compare three different sampling procedures, which were "single-swab", "double-swab", and "other methods" (i.e., cutting out, adhesive tape, FTA® paper scraping), based on the experimental results published in the recent literature. The data analysis performed shows the higher efficiency of the single-swab method in DNA recovery in a wide variety of experimental settings. On the contrary, the double-swab technique and other methods do not seem to improve recovery rates. Despite the apparent discrepancy with previous research, these results underline certain limitations inherent to the sampling procedures investigated. The application of this information to forensic investigations and laboratories could improve operative standard procedures and enhance this almost fundamental investigative tool's probative value.

Transfer and persistence of DNA on items routinely encountered in forensic casework following habitual and short-duration one-time use

Empirical data obtained from controlled experiments is necessary to ensure that sound expert opinion evidence is provided regarding transfer and persistence of DNA in criminal proceedings. Knowledge in this area is also required at the outset of criminal investigations, to ensure that the proposed examinations can assist with answering questions that are relevant to forensic investigations. This study aimed to provide such data by examining the relative and absolute quantities of DNA deposited on items that are routinely submitted to the forensic laboratory by a habitual user, defined as someone who used it for ~1 week, and a subsequent one-time user. We found that the quantity of DNA deposited on routine household items spanned a broad range. The habitual user's DNA was detected on most items as the major donor, regardless of whether it was subsequently handled by another person for a short period of time. The one-time, short duration, user's DNA was detected on approximately two thirds of the items, albeit typically at quantities lower than the habitual user. Most of the household items we examined also had detectable DNA deposits from at least one other, unknown individual, typically in low quantities. Attempts to clean non-porous items with readily available household cleaners were partially effective but failed to completely eliminate detectable DNA from a habitual user in most cases.

DNA Transfer in Forensic Science: Recent Progress towards Meeting Challenges

Understanding the factors that may impact the transfer, persistence, prevalence and recovery of DNA (DNA-TPPR), and the availability of data to assign probabilities to DNA quantities and profile types being obtained given particular scenarios and circumstances, is paramount when performing, and giving guidance on, evaluations of DNA findings given activity level propositions (activity level evaluations). In late 2018 and early 2019, three major reviews were published on aspects of DNA-TPPR, with each advocating the need for further research and other actions to support the conduct of DNA-related activity level evaluations. Here, we look at how challenges are being met, primarily by providing a synopsis of DNA-TPPR-related articles published since the conduct of these reviews and briefly exploring some of the actions taken by industry stakeholders towards addressing identified gaps. Much has been carried out in recent years, and efforts continue, to meet the challenges to continually improve the capacity of forensic experts to provide the guidance sought by the judiciary with respect to the transfer of DNA.

Prevalence of DNA of regular occupants in vehicles

People will deposit, redistribute and remove biological traces when they interact with their environment. Understanding the dynamics of trace DNA is crucial to assess both the optimal sampling strategy to recover traces and the relevance of DNA evidence in the context of a case. This paper addresses the prevalence of DNA of drivers, passengers, and unknown individuals in vehicles. Five vehicles with a regular driver only, and five vehicles with a regular driver and regular passenger have each been sampled at twenty locations. Based on the findings, we propose a sampling strategy for investigative purposes as well as for evaluative purposes when evaluating the findings given scenarios that propose the person-of-interest as either the driver or passenger in a vehicle.

DNA transfer to firearms in alternative realistic handling scenarios

Firearms are the most relevant items of evidence in gun-related crimes, likely bearing various traces facilitating an objective reconstruction of the crime. Trace DNA recovered from firearm surfaces might help to identify individual(s) having handled the firearm and thereby possibly to link the firearm and the corresponding shooter, however, the interpretation of DNA traces on handled items can be challenging and requires a detailed understanding of various factors impacting DNA prevalence, transfer, persistence and recovery. Herein, we aimed at improving our understanding of factors affecting the variability of trace DNA characteristics recovered from firearms handled in gun-related crimes: Skin contact traces were recovered from various outer surfaces of two types of firearms handled in four realistic, casework-relevant handling scenarios and the corresponding trace characteristics (DNA yield, number of contributors, relative profile contribution for known and unknown contributors, LRs) were compared. Trace DNA characteristics differed distinctly between handling conditions, firearm and surface types as well as handling individuals and intraindividual deposits emphasizing the variability and complexity of trace DNA profile composition expected to be recovered from firearms after realistic handling scenarios. The obtained results can provide useful insights for forensic experts evaluating alternative activity level propositions in gun-related crimes.

DNA detection of a temporary and original user of an office space

There is a need to improve our awareness of the transfer, persistence, prevalence and recovery of DNA (DNA-TPPR) from items/surfaces, and within different spaces and circumstances, to assist sample targeting during collection and activity level assessments. Here we investigate DNA-TPPR within office spaces. Specifically, to what extent DNA, left by a temporary user of an office space that has been occupied by a regular user for an extended period, is detectable when the duration of their temporary occupancy and their general activities are known. Also, how readily the DNA of the regular user is still detectable after a known period of occupancy by another person, and to what extent DNA of others is present. Samples were collected from 18 core items/surfaces within eight single use office spaces that had been used temporarily by another occupant for 2.5-7 h. Four of these offices were within one forensic laboratory and four within another. Each lab collected and processed the samples to generate DNA profiles using their own set of methodologies. The owner/regular user of an office space was found to be the major/majority contributor to profiles from most items within the space, even after temporary use by another person. The detectability of the temporary occupier of an office space varied among offices and items. The temporary occupier was not observed on all items touched. In most instances, when detected, the temporary occupier was known to have touched the surface at some stage. Therefore, where one is seeking to collect samples that may detect a temporary user of a space, it is advisable to target several potentially touched sites. A difference in methodologies applied from collection through to profiling appears to impact DNA yields and profile types. Ascertaining the impact of using different methodologies on the profiles generated from collected samples, requires further research. More research is also needed to generate data to help determine frequency estimates for different types of profiles given different user histories of an item or space.