Stabbing simulations and DNA transfer

Technical developments have made it possible to analyze very low amounts of DNA. This has many advantages, but the drawback of this technological progress is that interpretation of the results becomes increasingly complex: the number of mixed DNA profiles increased relatively to single source DNA profiles and stochastic effects in the DNA profile, such as drop-in and drop-out, are more frequently observed. Moreover, the relevance of low template DNA material regarding the activities alleged is not as straightforward as it was a few years ago, when for example large quantities of blood were recovered. The possibility of secondary and tertiary transfer is now becoming an issue. The purpose of this research is twofold: first, to study the transfer of DNA from the handler and secondly, to observe if handlers would transfer DNA from persons closely connected to them. We chose to mimic cases where the offender would attack a person with a knife. As a first approach, we envisaged that the defense would not give an alternative explanation for the origin of the DNA. In our transfer experiments (4 donors, 16 experiments each, 64 traces), 3% of the traces were single DNA profiles. Most of the time, the DNA profile of the person handling the knife was present as the major profile: in 83% of the traces the major contributor profile corresponded to the stabber's DNA profile (in single stains and mixtures). Mixture with no clear major/minor fraction (12%) were observed. 5% of the traces were considered of insufficient quality (more than 3 contributors, presence of a few minor peaks). In that case, we considered that the stabber's DNA was absent. In our experiments, no traces allowed excluding the stabber, however it must be noted that precautions were taken to minimize background DNA as knives were cleaned before the experiments. DNA profiles of the stabber's colleagues were not observed. We hope that this study will allow for a better understanding of the transfer mechanism and of how to assess and describe results given activity level propositions. In this preliminary research, we have focused on the transfer of DNA on the hand of the person. Besides, more research is needed to assign the probability of the results given an alternative activity proposed by the defense, for instance when the source of the DNA is not contested, but that the activities are.

Dismissal of the illusion of uncertainty in the assessment of a likelihood ratio

The use of the Bayes factor (BF) or likelihood ratio as a metric to assess the probative value of forensic traces is largely supported by operational standards and recommendations in different forensic disciplines. However, the progress towards more widespread consensus about foundational principles is still fragile as it raises new problems about which views differ. It is not uncommon e.g. to encounter scientists who feel the need to compute the probability distribution of a given expression of evidential value (i.e. a BF), or to place intervals or significance probabilities on such a quantity. The article here presents arguments to show that such views involve a misconception of principles and abuse of language. The conclusion of the discussion is that, in a given case at hand, forensic scientists ought to offer to a court of justice a given single value for the BF, rather than an expression based on a distribution over a range of values.

Helping formulate propositions in forensic DNA analysis

The Bayesian paradigm is the preferred approach to evidence interpretation. It requires the evaluation of the probability of the evidence under at least two propositions. The value of the findings (i.e., our LR) will depend on these propositions and the case information, so it is crucial to identify which propositions are useful for the case at hand. Previously, a number of principles have been advanced and largely accepted for the evaluation of evidence. In the evaluation of traces involving DNA mixtures there may be more than two propositions possible. We apply these principles to some exemplar situations. We also show that in some cases, when there are no clear propositions or no defendant, a forensic scientist may be able to generate explanations to account for observations. In that case, the scientist plays a role of investigator, rather than evaluator. We believe that it is helpful for the scientist to distinguish those two roles.

Digital evidence, 'absence' of data and ambiguous patterns of reasoning

In this paper we discuss the use of digital data by the Swiss Federal Criminal Court in a recent case of attempted homicide. We use this case to examine drawbacks for the defense when the presentation of scientific evidence is partial, especially when the only perspective mentioned is that of the prosecution. We tackle this discussion at two distinct levels. First, we pursue an essentially non-technical presentation of the topic by drawing parallels between the court's summing up of the case and flawed patterns of reasoning commonly seen in other forensic disciplines, such as DNA and particle traces (e.g., gunshot residues). Then, we propose a formal analysis of the case, using elements of probability and graphical probability models, to justify our main claim that the partial presentation of digital evidence poses a risk to the administration of justice in that it keeps vital information from the defense. We will argue that such practice constitutes a violation of general principles of forensic interpretation as established by forensic science literature and current recommendations by forensic science interest groups (e.g., the European Network of Forensic Science Institutes). Finally, we posit that argument construction and analysis using formal methods can help replace digital evidence appropriately into context and thus support a sound evaluation of the evidence.

To analyse a trace or not? Evaluating the decision-making process in the criminal investigation

In order to broaden our knowledge and understanding of the decision steps in the criminal investigation process, we started by evaluating the decision to analyse a trace and the factors involved in this decision step. This decision step is embedded in the complete criminal investigation process, involving multiple decision and triaging steps. Considering robbery cases occurring in a geographic region during a 2-year-period, we have studied the factors influencing the decision to submit biological traces, directly sampled on the scene of the robbery or on collected objects, for analysis. The factors were categorised into five knowledge dimensions: strategic, immediate, physical, criminal and utility and decision tree analysis was carried out. Factors in each category played a role in the decision to analyse a biological trace. Interestingly, factors involving information available prior to the analysis are of importance, such as the fact that a positive result (a profile suitable for comparison) is already available in the case, or that a suspect has been identified through traditional police work before analysis. One factor that was taken into account, but was not significant, is the matrix of the trace. Hence, the decision to analyse a trace is not influenced by this variable. The decision to analyse a trace first is very complex and many of the tested variables were taken into account. The decisions are often made on a case-by-case basis.