Understanding the variables impacting DNA transfer, persistence, prevalence and recovery (DNA-TPPR) has become increasingly relevant in investigations of criminal activities to provide opinion on how the DNA of a person of interest became present within the sample collected. This review considers our current knowledge regarding DNA-TPPR to assist casework investigations of criminal activities. There is a growing amount of information available on DNA-TPPR to inform the relative probabilities of the evidence given alternative scenarios relating to the presence or absence of DNA from a specific person in a collected sample of interest. This information should be used where relevant. However, far more research is still required to better understand the variables impacting DNA-TPPR and to generate more accurate probability estimates of generating particular types of profiles in more casework relevant situations. This review explores means of achieving this. It also notes the need for all those interacting with an item of interest to have an awareness of DNA transfer possibilities post criminal activity, to limit the risk of contamination or loss of DNA. Appropriately trained forensic practitioners are best placed to provide opinion and guidance on the interpretation of profiles at the activity level. However, those requested to provide expert opinion on DNA-related activity level issues are often insufficiently trained to do so. We advocate recognition of DNA activity associated expertise to be distinct from expertise associated with the identification of individuals. This is to be supported by dedicated training, competency testing, authorisation, and regular fit for purpose proficiency testing. The possibilities for experts to report on activity-related issues will increase as our knowledge increases through further research, access to relevant data is enhanced, and tools to assist interpretations are better exploited. Improvement opportunities will be achieved sooner, if more laboratories and agencies accept the need to invest in these aspects as well as the training of practitioners.

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

Darwin was fascinated by the transportation of land snails across great swathes of open ocean by birds--he even immersed snails in sea water to see how long they would survive. Here we follow a molecular phylogenetic trail that reveals the incredible transequatorial dispersal of the land snail Balea from Europe to the Azores and the Tristan da Cunha islands, and back again. This long-distance dispersal is unexpected for what are proverbially considered the most pedestrian of creatures.

The evaluation of results of forensic genetic analyses given activity level propositions is an emerging discipline in forensic genetics. Although it is a topic with a long history, it has never been considered to be such a critically important topic for the field, as today. With the increasing sensitivity of analysis techniques, and advances in data interpretation using probabilistic models ('probabilistic genotyping'), there is an increasing demand on forensic biologists to share specialised knowledge to help recipients of expert information address mode and timing of transfer and persistence of traces in court. Scientists thereby have a critical role in the assessment of their findings in the context of the case. This helps the judiciary with activity level inferences in a balanced, robust and transparent way, when based on (1) proper case assessment and interpretation respecting the hierarchy of propositions (supported by, for example, the use of Bayesian networks as graphical models), (2) use of appropriate data to inform probabilities, and (3) reporting guidelines by international bodies. This critical review of current literature shows that with certain prerequisites for training and quality assurance, there is a solid foundation for evidence interpretation when propositions of interest are at the 'activity level'.

The interpretation of evidence continues to be one of the biggest challenges facing the forensic community. This is the first of two papers intended to provide advice on difficult aspects of evaluation and in particular on the formulation of propositions. The scientist has a dual role: investigator (crime-focused), where often there is no suspect available and a database search may be required; evaluator (suspect-focused), where the strength of evidence is assessed in the context of the case. In investigative mode, generally the aim is to produce leads regarding the source of the DNA. Sub-source level propositions will be adequate to help identify potential suspects who can be further investigated by the authorities. Once in evaluative mode, given the defence version of events of the person of interest, it may become necessary to consider alternatives that go beyond the source of the DNA (i.e., to consider activity level propositions). In the evaluation phase, it is crucial that formulation of propositions allows the assessment of all the results that will help with the issue at hand. Propositions should therefore be precise (indication of the number of contributors, information on the relevant population etc.), be about causes, not effects (e.g. a 'matching' DNA profile) and to avoid bias, must not be findings-led. This means that ideally, propositions should be decided based on the case information and before the results of the comparisons are known. This paper primarily reflects upon what has been coined as "sub-source level propositions". These are restricted to the evaluation of the DNA profiles themselves, and help answer the issue regarding the source of the DNA. It is to be emphasised that likelihood ratios given sub-source level propositions cannot be carried over to a different level - for example, activity level propositions, where the DNA evidence is put into the context of the alleged activities. This would be highly misleading and could give rise to miscarriages of justice; this will be discussed in a second paper. The value of forensic results depends not only on propositions, but also on the type of results (e.g. allelic designations, peak heights, replicates) and upon the model used: it is therefore important to discuss these aspects. Finally, since communication is key to help understanding by courts, we will explore how to convey the value of the results and explain the importance of avoiding the practice of transposing the conditional.