Trace evidence characteristics of DNA: A preliminary investigation of the persistence of DNA at crime scenes.

The successful recovery of trace or contact DNA is highly variable. It is seemingly dependent on a wide range of factors, from the characteristics of the donor, substrate and environment, to the delay between contact and recovery. There is limited research on the extent of the effect these factors have on trace DNA analysis. This study investigated the persistence of trace DNA on surfaces relevant to the investigation of burglary and robbery offences. The study aimed to limit the number of variables involved to solely determine the effect of time on DNA recovery. Given that it is difficult to control the quantity of DNA deposited during a hand contact, human buffy coat and DNA control solution were chosen as an alternative to give a more accurate measure of quantity. Set volumes of these solutions were deposited onto outdoor surfaces (window frames and vinyl material to mimic burglary and 'bag snatch' offences) and sterile glass slides stored in a closed environment in the laboratory, for use as a control. Trace DNA casework data was also scrutinised to assess the effect of time on DNA recovery from real samples. The amount of DNA recovered from buffy coat on the outdoor surfaces declined by approximately half over two weeks, to a negligible amount after six weeks. Profiles could not be obtained after two weeks. The samples stored in the laboratory were more robust, and full profiles were obtained after six weeks, the longest time period tested in these experiments. It is possible that profiles may be obtained from older samples when kept in similarly favourable conditions. The experimental results demonstrate that the ability to recover DNA from human cells on outdoor surfaces decreases significantly over two weeks. Conversely, no clear trends were identified in the casework data, indicating that many other factors are involved affecting the recovery of trace DNA. Nevertheless, to ensure that valuable trace evidence is not lost, it is recommended that crime scenes are processed expeditiously.

[1]  Mauro Pesaresi,et al.  Fingerprints as evidence for a genetic profile: morphological study on fingerprints and analysis of exogenous and individual factors affecting DNA typing. , 2003, Journal of forensic sciences.

[2]  Claude Roux,et al.  Assessing trace DNA evidence from a residential burglary: Abundance, transfer and persistence , 2008 .

[3]  P. M. Schneider,et al.  Criminal DNA databases: the European situation. , 2001, Forensic science international.

[4]  C. Roux,et al.  Glass particles in the clothing of members of the public in south-eastern Australia – a survey , 1999 .

[5]  G. N. Rutty,et al.  An investigation into the transference and survivability of human DNA following simulated manual strangulation with consideration of the problem of third party contamination , 2002, International Journal of Legal Medicine.

[6]  D. Sweet,et al.  An improved method to recover saliva from human skin: the double swab technique. , 1997, Journal of forensic sciences.

[7]  R. Decorte,et al.  Evaluation of methodology for the isolation and analysis of LCN-DNA before and after dactyloscopic enhancement of fingerprints , 2006 .

[8]  C Roux,et al.  Glass particles in footwear of members of the public in south-eastern Australia--a survey. , 2001, Forensic science international.

[9]  Tacha Hicks,et al.  Forensic Interpretation of Glass Evidence , 2000 .

[10]  Peter Gill,et al.  Development of a simulation model to assess the impact of contamination in casework using STRs. , 2004, Journal of forensic sciences.

[11]  Ray A Wickenheiser,et al.  Trace DNA: a review, discussion of theory, and application of the transfer of trace quantities of DNA through skin contact. , 2002, Journal of forensic sciences.

[12]  J M Curran,et al.  Assessing transfer probabilities in a Bayesian interpretation of forensic glass evidence. , 1998, Science & justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society.

[13]  C M Triggs,et al.  Glass on clothing and shoes of members of the general population and people suspected of breaking crimes. , 2001, Science & justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society.

[14]  John Buckleton,et al.  DNA Intelligence Databases , 2004 .

[15]  R. V. Oorschot,et al.  DNA fingerprints from fingerprints , 1997, Nature.

[16]  B C M Pang,et al.  Double swab technique for collecting touched evidence. , 2007, Legal medicine.

[17]  Walter Bär,et al.  Evaluation of the 4-year test period of the Swiss DNA database , 2006 .

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

[19]  Joachim Burger,et al.  Fingerprints from fingerprints , 2003 .

[20]  Gillian Tully,et al.  The propensity of individuals to deposit DNA and secondary transfer of low level DNA from individuals to inert surfaces. , 2002, Forensic science international.

[21]  S. Petricevic,et al.  The tendency of individuals to transfer DNA to handled items. , 2007, Forensic science international.

[22]  S A Harbison,et al.  The New Zealand DNA databank: its development and significance as a crime solving tool. , 2001, Science & justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society.

[23]  F Taroni,et al.  Probabilistic reasoning in the law. Part 2: Assessment of probabilities and explanation of the value of trace evidence other than DNA. , 1998, Science & justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society.

[24]  D. Phelan,et al.  Are you collecting all the available DNA from touched objects , 2003 .