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.
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.
Considering activity level propositions in the evaluation of forensic biology findings is becoming more common place. There are increasing numbers of publications demonstrating different transfer mechanisms that can occur under a variety of circumstances. Some of these publications have shown the possibility of DNA transfer from site to site on an exhibit, for instance as a result of packaging and transport. If such a possibility exists, and the case circumstances are such that the area on an exhibit where DNA is present or absent is an observation that is an important diagnostic characteristic given the propositions, then site to site transfer should be taken into account during the evaluation of observations. In this work we demonstrate the ways in which site to site transfer can be built into Bayesian networks when carrying out activity level evaluations of forensic biology findings. We explore the effects of considering qualitative vs quantitative categorisation of DNA results. We also show the importance of taking into account multiple individual’s DNA being transferred (such as unknown or wearer DNA), even if the main focus of the evaluation is the activity of one individual.
