A practical treatment of sensitivity analyses in activity level evaluations.

Evaluations of forensic observations considering activity level propositions are becoming more common place in forensic institutions. A measure that can be taken to interrogate the evaluation for robustness is called sensitivity analysis. A sensitivity analysis explores the sensitivity of the evaluation to the data used when assigning probabilities, or to the level of uncertainty surrounding a probability assignment, or to the choice of various assumptions within the model. There have been a number of publications that describe sensitivity analysis in technical terms, and demonstrate their use, but limited literature on how that theory can be applied in practice. In this work we provide some simplified examples of how sensitivity analyses can be carried out, when they are likely to show that the evaluation is sensitive to underlying data, knowledge or assumptions, how to interpret the results of sensitivity analysis, and how the outcome can be reported. We also provide access to an application to conduct sensitivity analysis.

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).

Introducing a Rapid DNA Analysis Procedure for Crime Scene Samples Outside of the Laboratory-A Field Experiment.

Technological innovations enable rapid DNA analysis implementation possibilities. Concordantly, rapid DNA devices are being used in practice. However, the effects of implementing rapid DNA technologies in the crime scene investigation procedure have only been evaluated to a limited extent. In this study a field experiment was set up comparing 47 real crime scene cases following a rapid DNA analysis procedure outside of the laboratory (decentral), with 50 cases following the regular DNA analysis procedure at the forensic laboratory. The impact on duration of the investigative process, and on the quality of the analyzed trace results (97 blood and 38 saliva traces) was measured. The results of the study show that the duration of the investigation process has been significantly reduced in cases where the decentral rapid DNA procedure was deployed, compared to cases where the regular procedure was used. Most of the delay in the regular process lies in the procedural steps during the police investigation, not in the DNA analysis, which highlights the importance of an effective work process and having sufficient capacity available. This study also shows that rapid DNA techniques are less sensitive than regular DNA analysis equipment. The device used in this study was only to a limited extent suitable for the analysis of saliva traces secured at the crime scene and can mainly be used for the analysis of visible blood traces with an expected high DNA quantity of a single donor.

Reporting on forensic biology findings given activity level issues in the Netherlands.

There appears to be some hesitation within the forensic biology community to formally evaluate and report on findings given activity level propositions. This hesitance in part stems from concerns about the lack of relevant data on the dynamics of biological traces and doubt about the relevance of such expert opinions to the trier of fact. At the Netherlands Forensic Institute formal evaluative opinions on the probability of case findings given propositions at the activity level are provided since 2013, if requested by a mandating authority. In this study we share the results from a retrospective analysis of 74 of such requests. We explore which party initiates requests, the types of cases that are submitted, the sources of data being used to assign probabilities to DNA transfer, persistence, prevalence and recovery (TPPR) events, the conclusions that were drawn by the scientists, and how the conclusions were used by the courts. This retrospective analysis of cases demonstrates that published sources of data are generally available and can be used to address DNA TPPR events in most cases, although significant gaps still remain. The study furthermore shows that reporting on forensic biology findings given activity level propositions has been generally accepted by the district and appeal courts, as well as the other parties in the criminal justice system in the Netherlands.

Comparison of genotyping and weight of evidence results when applying different genotyping strategies on samples from a DNA transfer experiment.

In this study, we assessed to what extent data on the subject of TPPR (transfer, persistence, prevalence, recovery) that are obtained through an older STR typing kit can be used in an activity-level evaluation for a case profiled with a more modern STR kit. Newer kits generally hold more loci and may show higher sensitivity especially when reduced reaction volumes are used, and this could increase the evidential value at the source level. On the other hand, the increased genotyping information may invoke a higher number of contributors in the weight of evidence calculations, which could affect the evidential values as well. An activity scenario well explored in earlier studies [1,2] was redone using volunteers with known DNA profiles. DNA extracts were analyzed with three different approaches, namely using the optimal DNA input for (1) an older and (2) a newer STR typing system, and (3) using a standard, volume-based input combined with replicate PCR analysis with only the newer STR kit. The genotyping results were analyzed for various aspects such as percentage detected alleles and relative peak height contribution for background and the contributors known to be involved in the activity. Next, source-level LRs were calculated and the same trends were observed with regard to inclusionary and exclusionary LRs for persons who had or had not been in direct contact with the sampled areas. We subsequently assessed the impact on the outcome of the activity-level evaluation in an exemplary case by applying the assigned probabilities to a Bayesian network. We infer that data from different STR kits can be combined in the activity-level evaluations.

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.

The importance of considering common sources of unknown DNA when evaluating findings given activity level propositions.

Evaluating forensic biological evidence considering activity level propositions is becoming more prominent around the world. In such evaluations it is common to combine results from multiple items associated with the alleged activities. The results from these items may not be conditionally independent, depending on the mechanism of cell/DNA transfer being considered and it is important that the evaluation takes these dependencies into account. Part of this consideration is to incorporate our understanding of prevalent DNA and of background DNA on objects and people, and how activities can lead to common sources of unknown DNA being deposited on items. We demonstrate a framework for evaluation of DNA evidence in such a scenario using Object-Oriented Bayesian Networks and apply it to a motivating case from South Australia.

Using case specific experiments to evaluate fingermarks on knives given activity level propositions.

Bayesian networks have shown to be a useful tool for the evaluation of forensic findings given activity level propositions. In this paper, we demonstrate how case specific experiments can be used to assign probabilities to the states of the nodes of a Bayesian network for the evaluation of fingermarks given activity level propositions. The transfer, persistence and recovery of fingermarks on knives is studied in experiments where a knife is either used to stab a victim or to cut food, representing the activities that were disputed in the case of the murder of Meredith Kercher. Two Bayesian networks are constructed, exploring the effect of different uses of the experimental data by assigning the probabilities based on the results of the experiments. The evaluation of the findings using the Bayesian networks demonstrates the potential for fingermarks in addressing activity level propositions.

DNA transfer to worn upper garments during different activities and contacts: An inter-laboratory study.

Cellular material derived from contact traces can be transferred via many direct and indirect routes, with the manner of contact and the time of transfer (in relation to the alleged crime-event) having an impact on whether DNA is recovered from the surface and a reportable profile generated. In an effort to acquire information on the transfer and recovery of DNA traces from clothing items worn during scenarios commonly encountered in casework, upper garments were worn during a normal working day before individuals were paired to embrace one another ('contact'), go on an outing together ('close proximity'), or individually asked to spend a day in another person's environment ('physical absence'). Each prescribed activity was repeated by sixteen individuals across four countries, and was the last activity performed before the garment was removed. Samples were collected from several areas of the upper garments and processed from DNA extraction through to profiling within the laboratory of the country in which the individual resided. Activities relating to the garment prior to and during wearing, including the prescribed activity, were recorded by the participant and considered during the interpretation of results. In addition to obtaining reference profiles from the wearer and their activity partner, DNA profiles from the wearers' close associates identified in the questionnaire were obtained to assess the impact of background DNA transferred prior to the prescribed activity. The wearer was typically, but not always, observed as the major contributor to the profiles obtained. DNA from the activity partner was observed on several areas of the garment following the embrace and after temporarily occupying another person's space. Particular areas of the garment were more prone to acquiring the hugging partner or office owner's DNA than others, and whether they were observed as the major or minor component was activity dependent. For each of the pairs, no DNA from the activity partner was acquired by the garments during the outing, even though both participants were in close proximity. This study provides empirical data on the transfer, persistence, prevalence and recovery of DNA from clothing items, and enables a better understanding of the mechanisms which lead to the transfer and detectability of DNA traces in different scenarios.

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.

Structuring cases into propositions, assumptions, and undisputed case information.

In this short publication we address the topic of evaluation of biological results given activity level propositions, particularly when the source of the biological material is not in question. When the issue regards the mechanisms or actions that led to the deposition of the biological material concerned, there is a need for more case information than when the issue pertains to the source of the DNA. It is up to the scientist to structure the provided case information into propositions, assumptions and undisputed case information. In our statements, deciding what goes in the propositions and what will be part of the paragraph dedicated to case information is partly personal. It may however affect the way we think about a case and thereby have consequences for the evaluation of the results as well as for the communication of the information to the recipient. In particular we highlight the importance of considering and communicating all DNA transfer mechanisms that are relevant to the evaluation under each proposition, and how the way the propositions are thought about (and expressed) can assist in this endeavour.

DNA commission of the International society for forensic genetics: Assessing the value of forensic biological evidence - Guidelines highlighting the importance of propositions. Part II: Evaluation of biological traces considering activity level propositions.

The value of the evidence depends critically on propositions. In the second of two papers intended to provide advice to the community on difficult aspects of evaluation and the formulation of propositions, we focus primarily on activity level propositions. This helps the court address the question of "How did an individual's cell material get there?". In order to do this, we expand the framework outlined in the first companion paper. First, it is important not to conflate results and propositions. Statements given activity level propositions aim to help address issues of indirect vs direct transfer, and the time of the activity, but it is important to avoid use of the word 'transfer' in propositions. This is because propositions are assessed by the Court, but DNA transfer is a factor that scientists need to take into account for the interpretation of their results. Suitable activity level propositions are ideally set before knowledge of the results and address issues like: X stabbed Y vs. an unknown person stabbed Y but X met Y the day before. The scientist assigns the probability of the evidence, if each of the alternate propositions is true, to derive a likelihood ratio. To do this, the scientist asks: a) "what are the expectations if each of the propositions is true?" b) "What data are available to assist in the evaluation of the results given the propositions?" When presenting evidence, scientists work within the hierarchy of propositions framework. The value of evidence calculated for a DNA profile cannot be carried over to higher levels in the hierarchy - the calculations given sub-source, source and activity level propositions are all separate. A number of examples are provided to illustrate the principles espoused, and the criteria that such assessments should meet. Ideally in order to assign probabilities, the analyst should have/collect data that are relevant to the case in question. These data must be relevant to the case at hand and we encourage further research and collection of data to form knowledge bases. Bayesian Networks are extremely useful to help us think about a problem, because they force us to consider all relevant possibilities in a logical way. An example is provided.

The evaluation of fingermarks given activity level propositions.

Fingermarks are highly relevant in criminal investigations for individualization purposes. In some cases, the question in court changes from 'Who is the source of the fingermarks?' to 'How did the fingermark end up on the surface?'. In this paper, we explore the evaluation of fingermarks given activity level propositions by using Bayesian networks. The variables that provide information on activity level questions for fingermarks are identified and their current state of knowledge with regards to fingermarks is discussed. We identified the variables transfer, persistency, recovery, background fingermarks, location of the fingermarks, direction of the fingermarks, the area of friction ridge skin that left the mark and pressure distortions as variables that may provide information on how a fingermark ended up on a surface. Using three case examples, we show how Bayesian networks can be used for the evaluation of fingermarks given activity level propositions.

Assessment of the transfer, persistence, prevalence and recovery of DNA traces from clothing: An inter-laboratory study on worn upper garments.

Among the various items recovered from crime scenes or persons involved in a crime event, clothing items are commonly encountered and submitted for forensic DNA sampling. Depending on the case circumstances and the activity-of-interest, sampling of the garment may concentrate on collecting DNA from the wearer, or from one or more offenders who have allegedly contacted the item and/or wearer. Relative to the targeted DNA, background DNA already residing on the item from previous contacts, or transferred during or after the crime event, may also be collected during sampling and observed in the resultant DNA profile. Given our limited understanding of how, and from where, background DNA is derived on clothing, research on the transfer, persistence, prevalence, and recovery (TPPR) of DNA traces from upper garments was conducted by four laboratories. Samples were collected from several areas of two garments, each worn on separate working or non-working days and individually owned by four individuals from each of the four laboratories, and processed from DNA extraction through to profiling. Questionnaires documented activities relating to the garment prior to and during wearing, and reference profiles were obtained from the wearer and their close associates identified in the questionnaire. Among the 448 profiles generated, variation in the DNA quantity, composition of the profiles, and inclusion/exclusion of the wearer and their close associates was observed among the collaborating laboratories, participants, garments worn on different occasions, and garment areas sampled.

Targeting relevant sampling areas for human biological traces: Where to sample displaced bodies for offender DNA?

Sampling strategy is one of the deciding factors in DNA typing success rates. Small amounts of bodily fluid traces and (skin) contact traces are currently not visualized in standard forensic practice. Trace recovery is usually based on the information available in a particular case and on the experience and 'forensic common sense' applied by the trace recovery expert. Interactions between an offender and a victim may have characteristic features, resulting in specific trace patterns. Understanding these interactions, and their resulting trace patterns, might improve crime related trace recovery as well as DNA typing success rates. In this study, we examined the interactions between offender and victim when a body has been relocated from one position/location to another. The contact between the hands of the offender and the body of the victim was visualized using a fluorescent dye in a lotion that was applied to the hands of the individual undertaking the relocation. The contact locations were scored and patterns were analyzed based on both victim and offender characteristics (height, weight, age, gender). The resulting patterns were compared to current trace recovery practices in the Netherlands. The results of this large-scale study facilitate evidence-based sampling supporting both investigative and evaluative forensic examinations.

DNA transfer in forensic science: A review.

Understanding the variables impacting DNA transfer, persistence, prevalence and recovery (DNA-TPPR) has become increasingly relevant in investigations of criminal activities to provide opinion on how the DNA of a person of interest became present within the sample collected. This review considers our current knowledge regarding DNA-TPPR to assist casework investigations of criminal activities. There is a growing amount of information available on DNA-TPPR to inform the relative probabilities of the evidence given alternative scenarios relating to the presence or absence of DNA from a specific person in a collected sample of interest. This information should be used where relevant. However, far more research is still required to better understand the variables impacting DNA-TPPR and to generate more accurate probability estimates of generating particular types of profiles in more casework relevant situations. This review explores means of achieving this. It also notes the need for all those interacting with an item of interest to have an awareness of DNA transfer possibilities post criminal activity, to limit the risk of contamination or loss of DNA. Appropriately trained forensic practitioners are best placed to provide opinion and guidance on the interpretation of profiles at the activity level. However, those requested to provide expert opinion on DNA-related activity level issues are often insufficiently trained to do so. We advocate recognition of DNA activity associated expertise to be distinct from expertise associated with the identification of individuals. This is to be supported by dedicated training, competency testing, authorisation, and regular fit for purpose proficiency testing. The possibilities for experts to report on activity-related issues will increase as our knowledge increases through further research, access to relevant data is enhanced, and tools to assist interpretations are better exploited. Improvement opportunities will be achieved sooner, if more laboratories and agencies accept the need to invest in these aspects as well as the training of practitioners.

Sharing data on DNA transfer, persistence, prevalence and recovery: Arguments for harmonization and standardization.

Sharing data between forensic scientists on DNA transfer, persistence, prevalence and recovery (TPPR) is crucial to advance the understanding of these issues in the criminal justice community. We present the results of a collaborative exercise on reporting forensic genetics findings given activity level propositions. This exercise outlined differences in the methodology that was applied by the participating laboratories, as well as limitations to the use of published data on DNA TPPR. We demonstrate how publication of experimental results in scientific journals can be further improved to allow for an adequate use of these data. Steps that can be taken to share and use these data for research and casework purposes are outlined, and the prospects for future sharing of data through publicly accessible databases are discussed. This paper also explores potential avenues to proceed with implementation and is intended to fuel the discussion on sharing data pertaining to DNA TPPR issues. It is further suggested that international standardization and harmonization on these topics will benefit the forensic DNA community as it has been achieved in the past with the harmonization of STR typing systems.

DNA commission of the International society for forensic genetics: Assessing the value of forensic biological evidence - Guidelines highlighting the importance of propositions: Part I: evaluation of DNA profiling comparisons given (sub-) source propositions.

The interpretation of evidence continues to be one of the biggest challenges facing the forensic community. This is the first of two papers intended to provide advice on difficult aspects of evaluation and in particular on the formulation of propositions. The scientist has a dual role: investigator (crime-focused), where often there is no suspect available and a database search may be required; evaluator (suspect-focused), where the strength of evidence is assessed in the context of the case. In investigative mode, generally the aim is to produce leads regarding the source of the DNA. Sub-source level propositions will be adequate to help identify potential suspects who can be further investigated by the authorities. Once in evaluative mode, given the defence version of events of the person of interest, it may become necessary to consider alternatives that go beyond the source of the DNA (i.e., to consider activity level propositions). In the evaluation phase, it is crucial that formulation of propositions allows the assessment of all the results that will help with the issue at hand. Propositions should therefore be precise (indication of the number of contributors, information on the relevant population etc.), be about causes, not effects (e.g. a 'matching' DNA profile) and to avoid bias, must not be findings-led. This means that ideally, propositions should be decided based on the case information and before the results of the comparisons are known. This paper primarily reflects upon what has been coined as "sub-source level propositions". These are restricted to the evaluation of the DNA profiles themselves, and help answer the issue regarding the source of the DNA. It is to be emphasised that likelihood ratios given sub-source level propositions cannot be carried over to a different level - for example, activity level propositions, where the DNA evidence is put into the context of the alleged activities. This would be highly misleading and could give rise to miscarriages of justice; this will be discussed in a second paper. The value of forensic results depends not only on propositions, but also on the type of results (e.g. allelic designations, peak heights, replicates) and upon the model used: it is therefore important to discuss these aspects. Finally, since communication is key to help understanding by courts, we will explore how to convey the value of the results and explain the importance of avoiding the practice of transposing the conditional.

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

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'.