Transfer and persistence of non-self DNA on hands over time: Using empirical data to evaluate DNA evidence given activity level propositions

Szkuta, Bianca; Ballantyne, Kaye N.; Kokshoorn, Bas; Oorschot, Roland A.H. van

doi:10.1016/j.fsigen.2017.11.017

Cited by 54 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…• There have been several high-profile cases that received international attention, which revolved around DNA TPPR issues (such as the Meredith Kercher case [72,73] and the Fitzgerald case [74]) These high-profile cases are not exceptional, but reflect the increasing emphasis that is given in many jurisdictions to DNA transfer and persistence rather than questions of source only.…”

Section: Why the Current Interest In Evaluating Findings Given Positementioning

confidence: 99%

“…For evaluations given sub-source level propositions, these types of sensitivity analysis have been carried out for semi-continuous DNA interpretation systems that use probabilities for dropout and drop-in [64,65]. Examples of this type of sensitivity analysis for evaluations given source and activity level propositions were given by Taylor [19,130], Evett [6] and Szkuta et al [74].…”

Section: Errors Measurement Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analysesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Fitzgerald was convicted but subsequently released on appeal as secondary transfer could not be discounted. The case has been analysed in more detail by Szkuta et al[74].-R v PfennigA young girl went missing from her bedroom. Her pyjama top was found a few days after her disappearance.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Evaluation of forensic genetics findings given activity level propositions: A review

Taylor

Kokshoorn

Biedermann

2018

Forensic Science International: Genetics

Self Cite

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The evaluation of results of forensic genetic analyses given activity level propositions is an emerging discipline in forensic genetics. Although it is a topic with a long history, it has never been considered to be such a critically important topic for the field, as today. With the increasing sensitivity of analysis techniques, and advances in data interpretation using probabilistic models ('probabilistic genotyping'), there is an increasing demand on forensic biologists to share specialised knowledge to help recipients of expert information address mode and timing of transfer and persistence of traces in court. Scientists thereby have a critical role in the assessment of their findings in the context of the case. This helps the judiciary with activity level inferences in a balanced, robust and transparent way, when based on (1) proper case assessment and interpretation respecting the hierarchy of propositions (supported by, for example, the use of Bayesian networks as graphical models), (2) use of appropriate data to inform probabilities, and (3) reporting guidelines by international bodies. This critical review of current literature shows that with certain prerequisites for training and quality assurance, there is a solid foundation for evidence interpretation when propositions of interest are at the 'activity level'.

show abstract

Section: Why the Current Interest In Evaluating Findings Given Positementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Errors Measurement Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analysesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evaluation of forensic genetics findings given activity level propositions: A review

Taylor

Kokshoorn

Biedermann

2018

Forensic Science International: Genetics

Self Cite

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…An alternative approach, sourcing data from the literature is a possibility providing that the data can be found. The idea of systematically organizing data such as research into the transfer and persistence of different evidence types is not new (Biedermann et al, ; Buckleton & Walsh, ; Evett, ; Szkuta, Ballantyne, Kokshoorn, & van Oorschot, ), but centralized open source resources are still not readily available. Such a repository would allow greater sharing of knowledge as well as more consistency between scientists.…”

Section: Construction Of a Bayesian Network For Evaluating Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…DNA can be already present or deposited on any surface either by direct or indirect transfer. There is extensive literature available regarding experiments exploring the prevalence, transfer, and persistence of DNA under controlled conditions (Fonneløp, Ramse, Egeland, & Gill, 2017;Lowe, Murray, Whitaker, Tully, & Gill, 2002;Magee et al, 2018;Meakin & Jamieson, 2013;Szkuta et al, 2018;Szkuta, Ballantyne, & van Oorschot, 2017;Taylor et al, 2017) and this type of research is essential to enable accurate probabilities to be assigned to nodes in a network.…”

Section: Construction Of Bayesian Network: Activity Levelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bayesian networks for the interpretation of biological evidence

Schaapveld

Opperman

Harbison

2019

WIREs Forensic Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In court, it is typical for biological evidence to be reported at a level that only addresses how likely the DNA evidence is if it originated from a particular individual, or individuals. However, there are other questions that could be considered that would be of value in enabling the court, including the jury, to make better informed decisions. For example, although answers to specific questions such as: “Which type of bodily fluid has the DNA originated from?” or, “How was the DNA deposited at the scene?” would be probabilistic in nature, they can be crucial to the outcome of a case. The relationship between the DNA evidence, the source of the DNA and the activity that took place is described in a term called the “hierarchy of propositions.” Currently, such questions are usually answered by scientists subjectively with little to no logical framework to assist them. Bayesian networks have proven to be beneficial in providing logical reasoning by way of a likelihood ratio to help combine subjective, yet, experience‐based, opinions of experts with experimental data when answering questions which can be both complex and uncertain. These networks offer a framework that provides balance, transparency, and robustness in the evaluation of evidence. A current limitation of the use of Bayesian networks includes a lack of understanding of the underlying concepts from both forensic scientists and the courts and consequently a reduced recognition of the potential strengths. This article is categorized under: Forensic Biology > Interpretation of Biological Evidence

show abstract

References

2020

Statistics and the Evaluation of Evidence for Forensic Scientists 3e

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Transfer and persistence of non-self DNA on hands over time: Using empirical data to evaluate DNA evidence given activity level propositions

Cited by 54 publications

References 39 publications

Evaluation of forensic genetics findings given activity level propositions: A review

Evaluation of forensic genetics findings given activity level propositions: A review

Bayesian networks for the interpretation of biological evidence

References

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About