Recommendations for animal DNA forensic and identity testing

Genetic analysis in animals has been used for many applications, such as kinship analysis, for determining the sire of an offspring when a female has been exposed to multiple males, determining parentage when an animal switches offspring with another dam, extended lineage reconstruction, estimating inbreeding, identification in breed registries, and speciation. It now also is being used increasingly to characterize animal materials in forensic cases. As such, it is important to operate under a set of minimum guidelines that assures that all service providers have a template to follow for quality practices. None have been delineated for animal genetic identity testing. Based on the model for human DNA forensic analyses, a basic discussion of the issues and guidelines is provided for animal testing to include analytical practices, data evaluation, nomenclature, allele designation, statistics, validation, proficiency testing, lineage markers, casework files, and reporting. These should provide a basis for professional societies and/or working groups to establish more formalized recommendations.

Exclusionary DNA of forensic workers and Australian forensic procedures legislation

Consideration of regulatory issues covering exclusionary DNA of forensic workers - probative effect of eliminating extraneous DNA in a criminal prosecution - current regulatory scheme leaves the legal position of forensic workers' exclusionary DNA obscure.

Beyond the sphere of the English facial approximation literature: Ramifications of German papers on western method concepts

In the English literature, facial approximation methods have been commonly classified into three types: Russian, American, or Combination. These categorizations are based on the protocols used, for example, whether methods use average soft-tissue depths (American methods) or require face muscle construction (Russian methods). However, literature searches outside the usual realm of English publications reveal key papers that demonstrate that the Russian category above has been founded on distorted views. In reality, Russian methods are based on limited face muscle construction, with heavy reliance on modified average soft-tissue depths. A closer inspection of the American method also reveals inconsistencies with the recognized classification scheme. This investigation thus demonstrates that all major methods of facial approximation depend on both face anatomy and average soft-tissue depths, rendering common method classification schemes redundant. The best way forward appears to be for practitioners to describe the methods they use (including the weight each one gives to average soft-tissue depths and deep face tissue construction) without placing them in any categorical classificatory group or giving them an ambiguous name. The state of this situation may need to be reviewed in the future in light of new research results and paradigms.

Assessing facial approximation accuracy: How do resemblance ratings of disparate faces compare to recognition tests?

In the past, the accuracy of facial approximations has been assessed by resemblance ratings (i.e., the comparison of a facial approximation directly to a target individual) and recognition tests (e.g., the comparison of a facial approximation to a photo array of faces including foils and a target individual). Recently, several research studies have indicated that recognition tests hold major strengths in contrast to resemblance ratings. However, resemblance ratings remain popularly employed and/or are given weighting when judging facial approximations, thus indicating that no consensus has been reached. This study aims to further investigate the matter by comparing the results of resemblance ratings and recognition tests for two facial approximations which clearly differed in their morphological appearance. One facial approximation was constructed by an experienced practitioner privy to the appearance of the target individual (practitioner had direct access to an antemortem frontal photograph during face construction), while the other facial approximation was constructed by a novice under blind conditions. Both facial approximations, whilst clearly morphologically different, were given similar resemblance scores even though recognition test results produced vastly different results. One facial approximation was correctly recognized almost without exception while the other was not correctly recognized above chance rates. These results suggest that resemblance ratings are insensitive measures of the accuracy of facial approximations and lend further weight to the use of recognition tests in facial approximation assessment. (c) 2006 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.