The Effectiveness of Trace DNA Profiling—A Comparison Between a U.S. and a U.K. Law Enforcement Jurisdiction |
| |
| Authors: | John W. Bond O.B.E. D.Phil. Jocelyn R. Weart O.B.E. D.Phil. |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. Department of Criminology, University of Leicester, Leicester, U.K;2. Santa Clara County Crime Laboratory, San Jose, CA |
| |
| Abstract: | Recovery, profiling, and speculative searching of trace DNA (not attributable to a body fluid/cell type) over a twelve‐month period in a U.S. Crime Laboratory and U.K. police force are compared. Results show greater numbers of U.S. firearm‐related items submitted for analysis compared with the U.K., where greatest numbers were submitted from burglary or vehicle offenses. U.S. multiple recovery techniques (double swabbing) occurred mainly during laboratory examination, whereas the majority of U.K. multiple recovery techniques occurred at the scene. No statistical difference was observed for useful profiles from single or multiple recovery. Database loading of interpretable profiles was most successful for U.K. items related to burglary or vehicle offenses. Database associations (matches) represented 7.0% of all U.S. items and 13.1% of all U.K. items. The U.K. strategy for burglary and vehicle examination demonstrated that careful selection of both items and sampling techniques is crucial to obtaining the observed results. |
| |
| Keywords: | forensic science trace DNA evidence collection swab sampling adhesive tape sampling offender hit |
|
|
