The effect of the uncertainty in the number of contributors to mixed DNA profiles on profile interpretation

Forensic Science International: Genetics

Volumn 12, Issue , 2014, Pages 208-214

  Bright, Jo Anne ^a,b   Curran, James M ^b   Buckleton, John S ^a  

^a MT ALBERT RESEARCH CENTRE   (New Zealand)

^b UNIVERSITY OF AUCKLAND   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

Forensic DNA; Identifiler; Interpretation; Mixed DNA profiles; STRmix

Indexed keywords

DNA;

ARTICLE; DNA DETERMINATION; FORENSIC IDENTIFICATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; UNCERTAINTY; GENETICS; HUMAN;

DNA; HUMANS; UNCERTAINTY;

EID: 84904539534     PISSN: 18724973     EISSN: 18780326     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.fsigen.2014.06.009     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. J.-A. Bright et al. Degradation of forensic DNA profiles Aus. J. Forensic Sci. 45 4 2013 445 449
2. T. Tvedebrink et al. Statistical model for degraded DNA samples and adjusted probabilities for allelic drop-out Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 6 1 2012 97 101
3. X.Y. Hauge, and M. Litt A study of the origin of 'shadow bands' seen when typing dinucleotide repeat polymorphisms by the PCR Hum. Mol. Genet. 2 4 1993 411 415 (Pubitemid 23107217)
4. J.S. Buckleton, C.M. Triggs, and S.J. Walsh DNA Evidence 2004 CRC Press Boca Raton, FL
5. J. Bacher, and J.W. Schumm Development of highly polymorphic pentanucleotide tandem repeat loci with low stutter Profiles DNA 2 1998 3 6
6. P. Gill et al. DNA commission of the International Society of Forensic Genetics: recommendations on the interpretation of mixtures Forensic Sci. Int. 160 2-3 2006 90 101 (Pubitemid 44056009)
7. A. Carracedo et al. Focus issue - analysis and biostatistical interpretation of complex and low template DNA samples Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 6 6 2012 677 678
8. J. Fraser, J.S. Buckleton, and P. Gill Review of DNA Reporting Practices by Victoria Police Forensic Services Division 2010
9. Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods (SWGDAM). SWGDAM Interpretation Guidelines for Autosomal STR Typing by Forensic DNA Testing Laboratories 2010 Available from: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/lab/codis/swgdam- interpretation-guidelines (accessed 11.03.11)
10. N. Morling et al. Interpretation of DNA mixtures - european consensus on principles Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 1 3-4 2007 291 292 (Pubitemid 47376570)
11. L. Geddes What are the chances? New Scientist 207 2774 2010 8 10
12. L. Geddes Fallible DNA evidence can mean prison or freedom New Scientist 207 2773 2010 8 11
13. I.E. Dror, and G. Hampikian Subjectivity and bias in forensic DNA mixture interpretation Sci. Justice 51 4 2011 204 208
14. ® DNA nixture interpretation J. Forensic Sci. 56 6 2011 1430 1447
15. A. Biedermann et al. Inference about the number of contributors to a DNA mixture: comparative analyses of a Bayesian network approach and the maximum allele count method Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 6 6 2012 689 696
16. B. Budowle et al. Mixture interpretation: defining the relevant features for guidelines for the assessment of mixed DNA profiles in forensic casework J. Forensic Sci. 54 4 2009 810 821
17. J.-A. Bright et al. Searching mixed DNA profiles directly against profile databases Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 9 2014 102 110
18. D. Taylor, J.-A. Bright, and J.S. Buckleton The interpretation of single source and mixed DNA profiles Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 7 5 2013 516 528
19. B. Budowle et al. Population data on the thirteen CODIS core short tandem repeat loci in African Americans, US Caucasians, Hispanics, Bahamanians, Jamaicans and Trinidadians J. Forensic Sci. 44 1999 1277 1286 (Pubitemid 29534232)
20. B. Budowle et al. Population data on the STR loci D2S1338 and D19S433 Forensic Sci. Commun. 3 3 2001 Available at http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/lab/ forensic-science-communications/fsc/july2001/index.htm/budowle2.htm
21. J.-A. Bright et al. Developing allelic and stutter peak height models for a continuous method of DNA interpretation Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 7 2 2013 296 304
22. D. Taylor Using continuous DNA interpretation methods to revisit likelihood ratio behaviour Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 11 2014 144 153