Contextual DNA samples in evaluations given activity level propositions.

A template Bayesian network for combining forensic evidence on an item with an uncertain relation to the disputed activities

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.

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

The use of Bayesian Networks and simulation methods to identify the variables impacting the value of evidence assessed under activity level propositions in stabbing cases

Who packed the drugs? Improved DNA recovery and its impact on findings given activity-level propositions.

The evaluation of forensic fibre evidence given activity level propositions is complex, due to the circumstances and factors of consideration in each case. While Bayesian Networks (BNs) are increasingly recognised for their potential in supporting this evaluative process, their application within the fibre and microtrace specialties remains limited, often relying on complex representations. This paper presents a simplified methodology for constructing narrative BNs for the activity-level evaluation of forensic fibre findings. Through an illustrative case scenario, we develop three examples of BNs designed as an accessible starting point for practitioners to build case-specific networks. These examples emphasise the transparent incorporation of case information, facilitate the assessment of the evaluation's sensitivity to variations in data, and highlight avenues for further research. Significantly, the qualitative, narrative offers a format that is easier for both experts and the Court to understand, enhances user-friendliness and accessibility, and aligns with successful approaches in other forensic disciplines as forensic biology. This alignment has the potential to readily facilitate interdisciplinary collaboration and ultimately a more holistic approach.

ABSTRACTThe advancement of DNA technology comes with the increased sensitivity of amplification systems, where DNA traces are routinely detected without a known biological source. These systems also have increased discriminating capacity, providing larger likelihood ratios (LRs) when a corresponding DNA profile is observed. Questions in court are shifting from identity to transfer mechanism, where the presence of an individual’s DNA is conceded by both parties, but the activities that led to its deposition is in dispute. One way of handling propositions developed at the activity level is with the use of graphical structures known as Bayesian Networks (BNs). The following is an evaluation of a case, given activity level propositions, through the application of BNs. Alternative case findings will be explored for the given scenario to show the potential value of the DNA evidence for different outcomes within the broader case context.

The ReAct (Recovery, Activity) project is an ENFSI (European Network of Forensic Science Institutes) supported initiative comprising a large consortium of laboratories. Here, the results from more than 23 laboratories are presented. The primary purpose was to design experiments simulating typical casework circumstances; collect data and to implement Bayesian networks to assess the value (i.e., likelihood ratio) of DNA results given activity level propositions. Two different experimental designs were used to simulate a robbery, where a screwdriver was used to force a door or window. Propositions and case information were chosen following laboratory feedback listing typical casework circumstances (included in the paper). In a direct transfer experiment, the defendant owned and used the screwdriver, but he did not force the door/window in question. An unknown person used the defendant's stolen screwdriver. In an indirect transfer experiment, the defendant neither owned, saw, nor used the screwdriver, nor did they force the door or window. For the second experiment, given the defence view, the defendant never held the screwdriver. We envisaged the situation where an object manipulated by the defendant (or the defendant himself/herself) would be touched by the unknown offender who would then force the window. It was found for the direct transfer experiment that unless a single contributor profile aligning with the known person's of interest profile was retrieved, the results did not allow to discriminate between propositions. On the other hand, for the indirect transfer experiment, both single and major contributor profiles that aligned with the person of interest (POI) supported the proposition that the person used the tool rather than an unknown person who had touched an object, when indeed the former was true. There was considerable variation in median recoveries of DNA between laboratories (between 200pg-5ng) for a given experiment if quantities are taken into account. These differences affect the likelihood ratios given activity level propositions. More than 2700 samples were analysed in the course of this study. Two different Bayesian Networks are made available via an open source application written in Shiny R: Shiny_React(). For comparison, all datasets were analysed using a qualitative method categorised into absent, single, major or other given contributors. The importance of standardising methods is emphasised, alongside the necessity of developing new approaches to assign the probability of laboratory-dependent DNA recovery. Freely accessible open databases play a crucial role in supporting these efforts.

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.

For many criminal cases, the source of who deposited the DNA is not what the prosecutor and the defense are trying to dispute. In court, the question may be how the DNA was deposited at the crime scene rather than who the DNA came from. Although laboratories in many countries have begun to evaluate DNA evidence given formal activity-level propositions (ALPs), it is unknown how much other forensic practitioners know and what they think about activity-level evaluative reporting (ALR). To collect this information, a survey with 21 questions was submitted to international forensic science organizations across Europe, Australia, South America, Canada, Asia, and Africa. The survey combined open-ended and multiple-choice questions and received 162 responses. Responses revealed a wide range of knowledge on the topic. Overall, most respondents were somewhat knowledgeable about ALR, ALP, and current practices in court and expressed their support of the concept. A majority of participants identified gaps and obstacles regarding ALR they would like to see addressed. Examples include (1) need for more education/training at all stakeholder levels, (2) need for more DNA evidence-related data under realistic case scenarios, (3) need to internally implement and validate a formalized and objective approach for reporting, and (4) in some countries the need to achieve court admissibility. This global survey gathered the current concerns of forensic DNA practitioners and outlined several operational concerns. The information can be used to advance the implementation of ALR in laboratories and court testimony worldwide.

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

A template for constructing Bayesian networks in forensic biology cases when considering activity level propositions

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

Interpretation of a paint cross-transfer on a burglary scene – A case report