DNA commission of the International society for forensic genetics: Assessing the value of forensic biological evidence - Guidelines highlighting the importance of propositions

Abstract

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.

DNA transfer in forensic science: A review

“…As noted by others [40,41,44,46,144,145,298], activity level questions concerning DNA need to be addressed. Forensic scientists with expertise in DNA-TPPR are therefore in a responsible position to provide guidance on the probabilities of specific evidence given specific scenarios using the information that is available at the time.…”

Interpreting Mixture Profiles: Comparison Between Precision ID GlobalFiler™ NGS STR Panel v2 and Traditional Methods

“…The profiles obtained from 12 mixed samples were analyzed in order to compare the sensitivity of the traditional and NGS methods, with or without default filtering, according to the national and international guidelines [ 28 , 29 , 30 ]. The DNA concentration for mixture samples was reported in the Supplementary Table S10 .…”

“…Regarding the mixture profiles, the goal of this analysis was to verify if the presence of major and minor contributors in the mixed samples could be stated through NGS, according to the national and international guidelines [ 28 , 29 , 30 ].…”

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

“…There is general acceptance in the forensic community of the use of a probabilistic framework for guiding evidence evaluation and that Bayesian networks are simply a graphical manner in which these evaluations can be constricted. Recommendations from forensic bodies are beginning to endorse the use of BN to help with evaluations when propositions of interest focus on activities [62] and, as demonstrated in this paper, numerous examples exist of how they can be used in a forensic context.…”

“…Training in the understanding and application of elements of probability theory should thus be mandatory, as in any other scientific discipline. Where evaluations require the incorporation of dependent variables and associated probabilities, the use of graphical approaches (e.g., Bayesian networks) for clarifying the structure and content of reasoning processes is often emphasized (even recommended by groups such as the ISFG[62]). This, however, requires adequate training in the case tailored construction and use of such models (and the software employed to build and manipulate them).…”