Houck Forensic Biology

1. Auflage 2015
ISBN: 978-0-12-800711-2
Verlag: Elsevier Science & Techn.
Format: EPUB
Kopierschutz: 6 - ePub Watermark

E-Book, Englisch, 406 Seiten

Reihe: Advanced Forensic Science Series

Forensic Biology provides coordinated expert content from world-renowned leading authorities in forensic biology. Covering the range of forensic biology, this volume in the Advanced Forensic Science Series provides up-to-date scientific learning on DNA analysis. Technical information, written with the degreed professional in mind, brings established methods together with newer approaches to build a comprehensive knowledge base for the student and practitioner alike. LIke each volume in the Advanced Forensic Science Series, review and discussion questions allow the text to be used in classrooms, training programs, and numerous other applications. Sections on fundamentals of forensic science, history, safety, and professional issues provide context and consistency in support of the forensic enterprise. Forensic Biology sets a new standard for reference and learning texts in mondern forensic science. - Advanced articles written by international forensic biology experts - Covers the range of forensic biology, including methods and interpretation - Includes entries on history, safety, and professional issues - Useful as a professional reference, advanced textbook, or training review

Autoren/Hrsg.

Houck, Max M.

Inhaltsverzeichnis

1;Front
Cover;1
2;FORENSIC BIOLOGY;4
3;Copyright;5
4;CONTENTS;6
5;EDITOR: BIOGRAPHY;10
6;LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS;12
7;FOREWORD;14
7.1;Reference;15
8;PREFACE;16
8.1;References;16
9;Section 1. Introduction;18
9.1;Principles of Forensic Science;18
9.1.1;What Is Forensic Science?;19
9.1.2;The Trace as the Basic Unit of Forensic Science;19
9.1.3;Two Native Principles;20
9.1.4;Nonnative Principles;21
9.1.5;Further Reading;22
9.1.6;Relevant Websites;22
9.2;Forensic Classification of Evidence;24
9.2.1;Introduction;24
9.2.2;Methods of Classification;24
9.2.3;Class-Level Information;25
9.2.4;Uniqueness and Individualization;26
9.2.5;Relationships and Context;27
9.2.6;Further Reading;28
9.3;Interpretation/The Comparative Method;30
9.3.1;Introduction;30
9.3.2;Analogy and Comparison within a Forensic Process;32
9.3.3;The Comparative Method within Forensic Science;33
9.3.4;Further Reading;34
9.4;Forensic Genetics: History;36
9.4.1;The Early Times;36
9.4.2;DNA Typing: Minisatellites and Short Tandem Repeats;37
9.4.3;Polymorphisms in Sexual Chromosomes and Mitochondrial DNA;38
9.4.4;Single-Nucleotide Polymorphisms and the Technological Revolution;38
9.4.5;Further Reading;39
9.4.6;Relevant Websites;39
9.5;Basic Principles;40
9.5.1;Definition;41
9.5.2;Genetic Theory and Probabilities;41
9.5.3;Genetic Information and DNA;42
9.5.4;Further Reading;42
9.5.5;Relevant Websites;43
9.6;Key Terms;43
9.7;Review Questions;43
9.8;Discussion Questions;43
9.9;Additional Readings;44
10;Section 2. Methods;46
10.1;Capillary Electrophoresis: Basic Principles;46
10.1.1;Introduction;47
10.1.2;Fundamentals of CE;47
10.1.3;Background Electrolytes;50
10.1.4;Modes of Separation in Electrophoresis;52
10.1.5;Instrumentation and Sample Handling;53
10.1.6;Future Directions;56
10.1.7;Further Reading;56
10.1.8;Relevant Websites;57
10.2;Capillary Electrophoresis in Forensic Biology;58
10.2.1;Introduction;58
10.2.2;CE Methodology;58
10.2.3;CE Typing Methodologies Used by Forensic Biologists;62
10.2.4;The Future of CE in Forensic Biology;64
10.2.5;Conclusion;64
10.2.6;Further Reading;65
10.2.7;Relevant Websites;65
10.3;Capillary Electrophoresis in Forensic Genetics;66
10.3.1;Introduction;66
10.3.2;Theory of CE;67
10.3.3;Conclusions;73
10.3.4;Further Reading;74
10.4;Chromatography: Basic Principles;76
10.4.1;Introduction;76
10.4.2;Classification of Chromatographic Techniques;76
10.4.3;Chromatographic Distribution Equilibria;78
10.4.4;Band Broadening in Chromatography;79
10.4.5;Additional Comments on Band Broadening;81
10.4.6;Optimization of Chromatographic Performance;82
10.4.7;Further Reading;82
10.4.8;Relevant Websites;82
10.5;Key Terms;82
10.6;Review Questions;82
10.7;Discussion Questions;83
10.8;Additional Readings;83
11;Section 3. Analysis;84
11.1;DNA Extraction and Quantification;84
11.1.1;DNA Extraction;84
11.1.2;Organic (Phenol–Chloroform) Extraction;84
11.1.3;Solid-phase DNA Extraction Methods;85
11.1.4;Chelating Resins (Chelex);85
11.1.5;DNA from FTA Spots;86
11.1.6;Differential Lysis;86
11.1.7;DNA Extraction from Bones and Teeth;86
11.1.8;Laser Capture Microdissection;86
11.1.9;Automation of DNA Extraction;86
11.1.10;Microfluidic DNA Extraction Devices;87
11.1.11;DNA Quantification;87
11.1.12;Current Real-time PCR Chemistries for Human DNA Quantification;87
11.1.13;Real-time PCR Nuclear DNA Quantification Assays;88
11.1.14;Real-time PCR Mitochondrial DNA Quantification;88
11.1.15;Acknowledgment;89
11.1.16;Further Reading;89
11.1.17;Relevant Websites;89
11.2;Short Tandem Repeats;90
11.2.1;The Genetics of Short Tandem Repeats. Short Tandem Repeats as a Class of Satellite DNA and the Genomic Characteristics of t ...;90
11.2.2;The Principles of Forensic Dye-labeled STR Typing: PCR Amplification, the DNA Profile, and the Match Probability;92
11.2.3;Irregularities Seen in Routine STR Profiling. Nonstandard Alleles, Complex Forensic STR Profiles, and the Importance of Det ...;94
11.2.4;New Developments in STR Typing;97
11.2.5;Beyond the Core Loci: New STRs;97
11.2.6;Further Reading;98
11.2.7;Relevant Websites;98
11.3;Single-Nucleotide Polymorphisms;100
11.3.1;Introduction;100
11.3.2;SNPs versus Short Tandem Repeats;100
11.3.3;SNP Typing Methods;103
11.3.4;SNP Typing Assays for Human Identification;104
11.3.5;Further Reading;105
11.3.6;Relevant Websites;105
11.4;MiniSTRs;106
11.4.1;Introduction;106
11.4.2;The Definition of a MiniSTR;107
11.4.3;Benefits of MiniSTRs;107
11.4.4;Limitations of MiniSTRs;108
11.4.5;Concordance Issues;108
11.4.6;Conclusions;109
11.4.7;Further Reading;109
11.4.8;Relevant Websites;109
11.5;Low-Template DNA Testing;110
11.5.1;Definition;110
11.5.2;Applications of LT-DNA Testing;110
11.5.3;Implementation of LT-DNA Testing;111
11.5.4;Statistical Considerations for LT-DNA Analysis;112
11.5.5;Casework Examples;112
11.5.6;Other Case Examples;113
11.5.7;Additional Considerations;114
11.5.8;Further Reading;115
11.5.9;Relevant Websites;115
11.6;X-Chromosome Markers;116
11.6.1;The X-Chromosome;116
11.6.2;X-Chromosome Markers in Forensic Genetics;118
11.6.3;Genetic Markers;120
11.6.4;Conclusions;122
11.6.5;Further Reading;123
11.6.6;Relevant Websites;123
11.7;Ancestry Informative Markers;124
11.7.1;The First Forensic Ancestry Informative Markers: Early Use of Ancestry Informative Protein Polymorphisms Demonstrated Their ...;124
11.7.2;Y-Chromosome and Mitochondrial DNA Variation;124
11.7.3;Points of Reference: Defining Populations or Ancestries, Ancestry Informativeness Metrics, Types of Autosomal AIMs, and Pop ...;125
11.7.4;Autosomal AIM-SNPs;126
11.7.5;Indels;128
11.7.6;Short Tandem Repeats;128
11.7.7;Statistical Analysis of AIM Genotype Data;130
11.7.8;Developments on the Horizon: Expanding Human SNP Catalogs, Combining Marker Types, Further Differentiation of Continental P ...;131
11.7.9;Acknowledgments;133
11.7.10;Further Reading;133
11.7.11;Relevant Websites;133
11.8;Mitochondrial DNA;134
11.8.1;Structure and Basics;134
11.8.2;Biology and Genetics;136
11.8.3;The Role of the Phylogeny in Forensic mtDNA Testing;137
11.8.4;Practical Aspects of Forensic mtDNA Testing;139
11.8.5;Acknowledgments;141
11.8.6;Further Reading;141
11.8.7;Relevant Websites;142
11.9;Microbiology and Bioterrorism;144
11.9.1;Introduction;145
11.9.2;Bioterrorism (and Its Impact);145
11.9.3;Biological Agents;145
11.9.4;Microbiology as a Forensic Science;145
11.9.5;The 2001 U.S. Anthrax Letters;146
11.9.6;The Application of Microbiological Procedures to the Forensic Sciences;148
11.9.7;The Microbiological Investigation of Bioterrorism;148
11.9.8;Final Remarks;149
11.9.9;Further Reading;150
11.9.10;Relevant Websites;150
11.10;Key Terms;150
11.11;Review Questions;150
11.12;Discussion Questions;151
11.13;Additional Readings;151
12;Section 4. Interpretation;152
12.1;DNA—Statistical Probability;152
12.1.1;Introduction;152
12.1.2;Probability;152
12.1.3;Laws of Probability;152
12.1.4;Bayes' Theorem;153
12.1.5;Forensic Probabilities;153
12.1.6;DNA LRs;154
12.1.7;Nature of DNA Profiles;154
12.1.8;Dependent Profiles;155
12.1.9;Effect of Relatives;155
12.1.10;Effect of Population Structure;155
12.1.11;Database Searches;156
12.1.12;Within-Database Comparisons;156
12.1.13;Cold-Hit Interpretation;156
12.1.14;Familial Searching;156
12.1.15;Conclusion;157
12.1.16;Further Reading;157
12.1.17;Relevant Websites;157
12.2;Significance;158
12.2.1;Introduction;158
12.2.2;A Brief Summary of Approaches to Estimating the Significance of DNA Evidence;158
12.2.3;Practical Application of Estimates of the Significance of DNA Evidence;160
12.2.4;Further Reading;162
12.2.5;Relevant Websites;163
12.3;The Frequentist Approach to Forensic Evidence Interpretation;164
12.3.1;Example;164
12.3.2;Range Tests;165
12.3.3;Formal Hypothesis Tests;166
12.3.4;Significance Levels and Small or Big Values;166
12.3.5;The Two-Sample t Test;167
12.3.6;Confidence Intervals;168
12.3.7;Controversies and Issues;169
12.3.8;Further Reading;169
12.4;Statistical Interpretation of Evidence: Bayesian Analysis;172
12.4.1;Introduction;172
12.4.2;Bayes' Rule;172
12.4.3;The Value of Evidence;173
12.4.4;Categorical Data and Discrete Hypotheses;173
12.4.5;Continuous Data and Discrete Hypotheses;176
12.4.6;Principles of Evidence Evaluation;176
12.4.7;Interpretation;177
12.4.8;Pitfalls of Intuition;177
12.4.9;Further Reading;178
12.5;Parentage Testing and Kinship Analysis;180
12.5.1;History of Parentage Testing;180
12.5.2;Technical Considerations;181
12.5.3;The Methods Used in Parentage Testing;181
12.5.4;Analysis of the Typical Parentage Trio;182
12.5.5;Cases Lacking a Known Parent;185
12.5.6;Special Types of DNA Testing;187
12.5.7;Mutations and How to Deal with Them;187
12.5.8;Future Considerations;188
12.5.9;Further Reading;189
12.5.10;Relevant Website;189
12.6;Mixture Interpretation (Interpretation of Mixed DNA Profiles with STRs Only);190
12.6.1;Introduction;190
12.6.2;Determining the Number of Contributors;191
12.6.3;Determining a Ratio of Contributors;191
12.6.4;Alleles below the Stochastic Threshold;193
12.6.5;Alleles above the Stochastic Threshold;193
12.6.6;Loci without Unambiguous Minor Alleles;194
12.6.7;Indistinguishable from Stutter;194
12.6.8;Interpretations That Utilize the Assumption of an Individual Being Intimate to the Sample;195
12.6.9;Mixture Deconvolution;197
12.6.10;Probative Comparisons;198
12.6.11;Future Considerations for DNA Mixture Interpretation;199
12.6.12;Further Reading;199
12.6.13;Relevant Website;199
12.7;Key Terms;199
12.8;Review Questions;200
12.9;Discussion Questions;200
12.10;Additional Readings;200
13;Section 5. Professional Issues;202
13.1;Crime Scene to Court;202
13.1.1;Introduction;203
13.1.2;Task;203
13.1.3;Models;203
13.1.4;Forensic Strategies;203
13.1.5;Integrated Case Management;205
13.1.6;Summary;206
13.1.7;Further Reading;206
13.2;Forensic Laboratory Reports;208
13.2.1;Contents of a Report—A “Science” Standard;208
13.2.2;Contents of Report: Legal Standards;209
13.2.3;Reports: Stand-alone Evidence or Support for a Testifying Expert;210
13.2.4;Ethical Considerations and Forensic Reports;210
13.2.5;Conclusion;210
13.2.6;Further Reading;211
13.2.7;Relevant Websites;211
13.3;Health and Safety;212
13.3.1;Occupational Health and Safety Policy;212
13.3.2;Specific Laboratory Hazards;214
13.3.3;Hazards in the Field;217
13.3.4;Further Reading;218
13.3.5;Relevant Websites;219
13.4;Accreditation in Forensic DNA Analysis;220
13.4.1;Introduction;220
13.4.2;Accreditation or Certification?;221
13.4.3;A Short Guide to Accreditation for ISO/IEC 17025;223
13.4.4;Further Reading;226
13.4.5;Relevant Websites;226
13.5;Measurement Uncertainty;228
13.5.1;Measurement;229
13.5.2;Measurement to Meaning;229
13.5.3;Measurement Uncertainty;231
13.5.4;Meaning Requires Uncertainty;238
13.5.5;Further Reading;239
13.6;The Innocence Project;240
13.6.1;Overview of the Innocence Project and Innocence Network;240
13.6.2;History;240
13.6.3;The Educational Mission;241
13.6.4;The Policy Mission;242
13.6.5;Further Reading;244
13.6.6;Relevant Websites;244
13.7;DNA Exonerations;246
13.7.1;Discovery of Wrongful Convictions through DNA Testing;246
13.7.2;Emergence of DNA as a Forensic Tool;246
13.7.3;Preservation of and Access to DNA Evidence;248
13.7.4;DNA Exonerations Today;249
13.7.5;Further Reading;251
13.7.6;Relevant Websites;251
13.8;DNA Databases;252
13.8.1;Introduction;252
13.8.2;Criteria for the Inclusion of DNA Profiles in National DNA Databases;252
13.8.3;Genetic Typing Systems;254
13.8.4;Privacy Rights, Ethical Considerations, and New Directions;255
13.8.5;Further Reading;256
13.8.6;Relevant Websites;256
13.9;The National Missing and Unidentified Persons System (NamUs);258
13.9.1;Introduction;258
13.9.2;Acknowledgment;258
13.9.3;Further Reading;258
13.10;Key Terms;258
13.11;Review Questions;259
13.12;Discussion Questions;259
13.13;Additional Readings;260
14;Section 6. Additional Topics;262
14.1;Future Analytical Techniques: DNA Mass Spectrometry;262
14.1.1;Background;263
14.1.2;Mass Spectrometric Methods in Forensic Genetics;263
14.1.3;MS-Based Genotypes and Haplotypes to Aid Forensic Analysis;265
14.1.4;Conclusions and Future Directions;271
14.1.5;Acknowledgments;272
14.1.6;Further Reading;272
14.2;Introduction to Nonhuman DNA Typing;274
14.2.1;Animal DNA Typing;274
14.2.2;Plant DNA Typing;277
14.2.3;Insect DNA Typing;278
14.2.4;Microbial DNA Typing from Soil Samples;278
14.2.5;Further Reading;279
14.3;Next-Generation Sequencing Technologies;282
14.3.1;Introduction;282
14.3.2;NGS Technologies;282
14.3.3;Targeted Enrichment;284
14.3.4;Applications in Forensic Sciences;285
14.3.5;Further Reading;286
14.4;Key Terms;286
14.5;Review Questions;286
14.6;Discussion Questions;286
14.7;Additional Readings;287
15;INDEX;288

Leseproben

Principles of Forensic Science

F. Crispino     Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières, Trois-Rivières, QC, Canada

M.M. Houck     Consolidated Forensic Laboratory, Washington, DC, USA

Abstract

Forensic science is grounded on two native principles (those of Locard and Kirk) and the admission of a few other non native ones. This framework is one definition of a paradigm for the discipline to be considered a basic science on its own merits. The science explores the relationships in legal and police matters through the analysis of traces of illegal or criminal activities. In this way, forensic science is seen as a historical science, interpreting evidence in context with its circumstances and originating processes (at source and activity levels).

Keywords

Epistemology; Forensic; Kirk; Locard; Paradigm; Science

Glossary

Abduction

   Syllogism in which one premise is certain whereas the other one is only probable, generally presented as the best explanation to the former. Hence, abduction is a type of reasoning in which we know the law and the effect, and we attempt to infer the cause.

Deduction

   Process of reasoning that moves from the general to the specific and in which a conclusion follows necessarily from the stated premises. Hence, deduction is a type of reasoning in which, knowing the cause and the law, we infer the effect.

Forensic intelligence

   Understanding on how traces can be collected from the scene, processed, and interpreted within a holistic intelligence-led policing strategy.

Heuristic

   Process of reasoning by rules that are only loosely defined, generally by trial and error.

Holistic

   Emphasizing the importance of the whole and the interdependence of its parts.

Induction

   Process of deriving general principles from particular facts or instances (i.e., of reasoning that moves from the specific to the general). Hence, induction is a type of reasoning in which, knowing the cause and the effect (or a series of causes and effects), we attempt to infer the law by which the effects follow the cause.

Linkage blindness

   Organizational or investigative failure to recognize a common pattern shared on different cases.

Science

   The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. It is also defined as a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject.

Given that it identifies and collects objects at crime scenes and then treats them as evidence, forensic science could appear at first glance to be only a pragmatic set of various disciplines, with practitioners adapting and developing tools and technologies to help the triers of fact (juries or judges) interpret information gained from the people, places, and things involved in a crime. The view could be—and has been—held that forensic science has no philosophic or fundamental unity and is merely the application of knowledge generated by other sciences. Indeed, many working forensic scientists regard themselves mainly as chemists, biologists, scientists, or technicians and rarely as practitioners of a homogeneous body of knowledge with common fundamental principles.

Even the 2009 National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council Report failed to recognize such a concept, certainly blurred by a semantic gap in the terminology itself of field practitioners, who confuse words such as “forensic science(s),” “criminalistic(s),” “criminology,” “technical police,” “scientific police,” and so on and generally restrict the scientific debate on analytical techniques and methods. An independent definition of forensic science, apart from its legal aspects, would support its scientific status and return the expert to his domain as scientist and interpreter of his analyses and results to assist the lay person.

What Is Forensic Science?

In its broadest sense, forensic science describes the utility of the sciences as they pertain to legal matters to include many disciplines, such as chemistry, biology, pathology, anthropology, toxicology, and engineering, among others. (“Forensic” comes from the Latin root forum, the central place of the city where disputes and debates were made public to be solved—hence defining the law of the city. Forensic generally means of or applied to the law.) The word “criminalistics” was adopted to describe the discipline directed toward the “recognition, identification, individualization, and evaluation of physical evidence by application of the natural sciences to law-science matters.” (“Kriminalistik” was coined in the late nineteenth century by Hans Gross, a researcher in criminal law and procedure to define his methodology of classifying investigative, tactical, and evidential information to be learned by magistrates at law schools to solve crimes and help convict criminals.) In the scheme as it currently stands, criminalistics is part of forensic science; the word is a regionalism and is not universally applied as defined. Difficulties in differentiating the concepts certainly invited the definition of criminalistics as the “science of individualization,” isolating this specific epistemologically problematic core from the other scientific disciplines. Individualization, the concept of determining the sole source of an item, enthroned a linear process—identification or classification on to individualization—losing sight of the holistic, variable contribution of all types of evidence. Assessing the circumstances surrounding a crime, in which the challenge is to integrate and organize the data in order to reconstruct a case or propose alternative propositions for events under examination, requires multiple types of evidence, some of which may be quite nuanced in their interpretation. This is also true in the use of so-called forensic intelligence, which feeds investigative, police, or security needs, in which one of the main reasons for failures is linkage blindness. Nevertheless, it seems that the essence of the forensic daily practice is hardly captured within the present definitions of both terms.

In the broadest sense, forensic science reconstructs past criminal events through the analysis of the physical remnants of those activities (evidence); the results of those analyses and their expert interpretation establish relationships among people, places, and objects relevant to those events. It produces these results and interpretations through logical inferences, induction, abduction, and deduction, all of which frame the hypothetico-deductive method; investigative heuristics also play a role. Translating scientific information into legal information is a particular domain of forensic science; other sciences must (or at least should) communicate their findings to the public, but forensic science is often required by law to communicate their findings to public courts. Indeed, as the Daubert hearing stated, “[s]cientific conclusions are subject to perpetual revision as law must resolve disputes finally and quickly.” This doubly difficult requirement of communicating to the public and to the law necessitates that forensic scientists should be better communicators of their work and their results. Scientific inferences are not necessarily legal proofs, and the forensic scientist must recognize that legal decisions based, in part, on their scientific work may not accord with their expert knowledge. Moreover, scientists must think in probabilities to explain evidence given possible causes whereas jurists must deal in terms of belief beyond reasonable doubt. As Inman and Rudin state, “Because we [the scientists] provide results and information to parties who lack the expertise to independently understand their meaning and implications, it is up to us to furnish an accurate and complete interpretation of our results. If we do not do this, our conclusions are at best incomplete, at worst potentially misleading.”

The Trace as the Basic Unit of Forensic Science

The basic unit of forensic science is the trace, the physical remnant of the past criminal activity. Traces are, by their very nature, semiotic: They represent something more than merely themselves; they are signifiers or signs for the items or events that are its source. A fiber is not the sweater it came from, a fingerprint is not the fingertip, soot in the trachea is not the victim choking from a fire, and blood droplets are not the violence against the victim, but they all point to their origin (source and activity) to a greater or lesser degree of specificity. Thus, the trace is a type of proxy data (i.e., an indicator of a related phenomenon but not the phenomenon itself). Traces come from the natural and manufactured items that surround us in our daily lives. In essence, traces are the raw material available at a crime scene that becomes forensic intelligence or knowledge. Everyday items and their traces become evidence through their involvement in criminal activities, and the activities add meaning to their existing status as goods in the world; for example, a fireplace poker is transformed into “the murder weapon” by its use as such. The meaning added should also take into account the context of the case, the circumstances under which the criminal activities occurred, and boarding the trier of fact mandate.

Traces become evidence when they are recognized, accepted as relevant (if blurred) to the past...