The interpretation of traces found on adhesive tapes

In violent crimes, adhesive tapes such as duct tape are often used by perpetrators e.g. to tie up a victim. In the forensic examination of such tapes many different types of traces can be found, such as finger marks and human biological traces. These traces are first interpreted at source level. However, even when it is certain that a trace was donated by the suspect this does not necessarily mean that he donated the trace while taping the victim, as he could have e.g. used the tape roll from which the pieces came previous to the crime. Therefore, the trace can also be interpreted at activity level. For this, factors such as transfer, persistence and recovery, as well as the position of the trace as it would have been on the original roll have to be taken into consideration. In this study, we have developed a Bayesian network which can aid the forensic practitioner in his interpretation. From a sensitivity analysis, we have concluded that it would be most desirable to set up further studies to determine the most likely positions of DNA on tape rolls if there has only been innocent contact.

[1]  Roland A H van Oorschot,et al.  Evaluation of tapelifting as a collection method for touch DNA. , 2014, Forensic science international. Genetics.

[2]  J. Buckleton,et al.  Forensic DNA Evidence Interpretation , 2004 .

[3]  Jonathan Whitaker,et al.  Interpreting small quantities of DNA: the hierarchy of propositions and the use of Bayesian networks. , 2002, Journal of forensic sciences.

[4]  Norah Rudin,et al.  An introduction to forensic DNA analysis , 2001 .

[5]  Kaitlin R McCabe,et al.  A Quantitative Analysis of Torn and Cut Duct Tape Physical End Matching , 2013, Journal of forensic sciences.

[6]  David R. Foran Review of: An Introduction to Forensic DNA Analysis, Second Edition , 2003 .

[7]  Christophe Champod,et al.  DNA transfer: informed judgment or mere guesswork? , 2013, Front. Genet..

[8]  Roberto Puch-Solis,et al.  Evidential evaluation of DNA profiles using a discrete statistical model implemented in the DNA LiRa software. , 2014, Forensic science international. Genetics.

[9]  Marjan Sjerps,et al.  How clear is transparent? Reporting expert reasoning in legal cases , 2012 .

[10]  David J. Balding,et al.  Bayesian Networks and Probabilistic Inference in Forensic Science , 2011 .

[11]  H Haned,et al.  Exploratory data analysis for the interpretation of low template DNA mixtures. , 2012, Forensic science international. Genetics.

[12]  Ronny Merkel,et al.  Sequence detection of overlapping latent fingerprints using a short-term aging feature , 2012, 2012 IEEE International Workshop on Information Forensics and Security (WIFS).

[13]  Roland A H van Oorschot,et al.  Persistence of DNA deposited by the original user on objects after subsequent use by a second person. , 2014, Forensic science international. Genetics.

[14]  M. Perlin,et al.  Validating TrueAllele® DNA Mixture Interpretation * ,† , 2011, Journal of forensic sciences.

[15]  Maureen J Bradley,et al.  A Validation Study for Duct Tape End Matches * , 2006, Journal of forensic sciences.

[16]  D. Balding Evaluation of mixed-source, low-template DNA profiles in forensic science , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[17]  Duncan Taylor,et al.  The interpretation of single source and mixed DNA profiles. , 2013, Forensic science international. Genetics.

[18]  Roland A H van Oorschot,et al.  DNA transfer within forensic exhibit packaging: potential for DNA loss and relocation. , 2012, Forensic science international. Genetics.

[19]  Louise McKenna,et al.  Understanding DNA results within the case context: importance of the alternative proposition , 2013, Front. Genet..

[20]  I. Evett,et al.  A hierarchy of propositions: deciding which level to address in casework , 1998 .