Touch DNA: The effect of the deposition pressure on the quality of latent fingermarks and STR profiles

Hefetz, Ido; Einot, Naftaly; Faerman, Marina; Horowitz, Michal; Almog, Joseph

doi:10.1016/j.fsigen.2018.10.016

Cited by 42 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It was initially shown in 2010 that the application of pressure between two contacting surfaces has the capacity to result in a greater transfer of DNA compared to passive contact (Goray, Eken, Mitchell, & van Oorschot, 2010; Goray, Mitchell, & van Oorschot, 2010). The impact of pressure on DNA transfer and recovery was then later confirmed by Hefetz, Einot, Faerman, Horowitz, and Almog (2019) and Tobias, Jacques, Morgan, and Meakin (2017), both of which demonstrated that increasing the deposition pressure of fingertips on a surface subsequently increased the rate of DNA recovery.…”

Section: “Activity Level Fallacy” Avoidance: Consideration Of Dna‐tppr Beliefsmentioning

confidence: 84%

Evaluating forensic DNA evidence: Connecting the dots

Meakin

Kokshoorn

Oorschot

et al. 2020

WIREs Forensic Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Technological developments within the field of forensic genetics have enhanced the sensitivity and specificity of DNA testing tremendously and have broadened the applications of biological evidence in criminal investigations.Evaluation and communication of the evidential findings within criminal cases have not maintained the same pace, which has largely stemmed from a failure to adopt a standardized approach within and across the various fields of forensic science. Within forensic biology, this has led to unjustified opinions on the weight of the evidence and occurrences of the association fallacy, when the weight of evidence given propositions at one level of the hierarchy of propositions is inappropriately transposed to a higher level. We further define the association fallacy to include the terms, "source level fallacy" and "activity level fallacy," to enable the forensic science community to better identify and address issues in biological evidence evaluation. It is important to understand these concepts and their causes, and in doing so, identify potential avenues to avoid these fallacies in forensic science casework. These avenues include training and education of forensic and legal professionals, as well as research into transfer, persistence, prevalence and recovery (TPPR) of DNA and biological evidence in general.

show abstract

Section: “Activity Level Fallacy” Avoidance: Consideration Of Dna‐tppr Beliefsmentioning

confidence: 84%

Evaluating forensic DNA evidence: Connecting the dots

Meakin

Kokshoorn

Oorschot

et al. 2020

WIREs Forensic Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…recovered offender DNA. Such variation is expected as the DNA deposition of touch DNA in our experiment can be influenced by a wide range of factors that cannot be standardized, such as personal habits, shedder status, extent of pressure or friction used by the offenders while grabbing the wrist, and activities [2,3,4,7,11,12,14]. A recent review summarizes the quantities of recovered touch DNA deposits from numerous studies, in which touch DNA from various surfaces was recovered, after different deposition times and contact scenarios, demonstrating the intravariability within the sample replicates [25].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the case of good shedders, it was observed that the majority of DNA was transferred during the first few seconds of contact. Additionally, numerous other factors such as pressure and friction applied during the contact, time and activities performed before contact, skin dryness, skin diseases, gender, and age are known to affect the amount of touch DNA transferred [2,3,11,12,13,14,15]. Fonneløp et al [4] proposed a new definition of the shedder status, based on both quantity and quality of the recovered DNA.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sampling touch DNA from human skin following skin‐to‐skin contact in mock assault scenarios—A comparison of nine collection methods

Kallupurackal

Kummer²,

Voegeli

et al. 2021

Journal of Forensic Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Collection of touch DNA from an offender on the victim's skin can provide relevant evidence for investigations of criminal cases. Therefore, the choice of the optimal sample collection method is crucial. In this study, we investigated the recovery of STR profiles from touch DNA on human skin by comparing nine different collection methods: the dry and wet cotton swabs in three different movements, the double-swab (wet-dry) method, the wet and dry Copan FLOQSwabs™, and the Scene Safe FAST™ minitapes. Mock assault scenarios were conducted with a male offender grasping the forearms of a female victim. Samples were collected from the assaulted area of the victim's skin, and the recovery of the offender's STR profile was evaluated. Our results indicate that the different swabs and swabbing techniques did not have a distinct impact on the STR recovery; however, the lowest STR recovery was achieved with Scene Safe FAST™ minitapes. In addition, we compared the double-swab method to the single-swab method by analyzing the DNA quantity of the wet and dry swabs separately. We found on average 13.7% more offender DNA using the double-swab method, but this did not translate into higher STR recovery. Our findings indicate that several methods perform equally well when collecting touch DNA from human skin, although SceneSafe FAST™ minitapes seem to be the least adequate for this purpose.

show abstract

“…Fingermarks are an important source of forensic information that can provide a unique link between an individual and evidence or crime scene [294][295][296][297][298][299][300][301]. Fingermarks are created when material is transferred from the fingers or palms onto a solid surface.…”

Section: Proteomic Analysis Of Fingermarksmentioning

confidence: 99%