DNA Contamination in Crime Scene Investigations: Common Errors, Best Practices, And Insights from a Survey Study Volume 58- Issue 5

Salem Khalifa Alketbi^1,2*

• ¹General Department of Forensic Science and Criminology, Dubai Police, UAE
• ²University of Central Lancashire, UK

Received: September 06, 2024; Published: October 04, 2024

*Corresponding author: Salem Khalif Alketbi, General Department of Forensic Science and Criminology, Dubai Police, Dubai, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK

DOI: 10.26717/BJSTR.2024.58.009223

Abstract PDF

ABSTRACT

The accurate handling of DNA evidence is essential to the success of criminal investigations and the integrity of the justice system. DNA contamination, resulting from improper crime scene procedures or laboratory practices, can severely compromise the quality of evidence, leading to wrongful convictions or acquittals. This review examines the common errors that contribute to DNA contamination in crime scene investigations and provides recommendations for best practices to mitigate these risks. Key areas of focus include errors during crime scene handling, evidence collection, packaging, transportation, and laboratory processing. The review also addresses the unique challenges posed by Touch DNA, a highly sensitive form of evidence that is particularly susceptible to contamination. Real-world case studies are presented to illustrate the legal and forensic consequences of DNA contamination, offering practical lessons for professionals in the field. In addition, the review features insights from a survey study titled “Crime Scene Personnel Perspectives on DNA Contamination: Survey Insights.” This study gathers input from newly recruited and well-trained crime scene personnel, highlighting their perspectives on the most critical errors and their impact on forensic investigations. The findings underscore the importance of continuous training, strict enforcement of forensic protocols, and the implementation of preventive measures at all stages of the forensic process. The review concludes with a comprehensive set of best practices aimed at preventing DNA contamination, emphasizing the need for ongoing education, advanced technologies, and rigorous adherence to standardized protocols. By addressing these common challenges, forensic professionals can improve the reliability of DNA evidence and uphold the integrity of the criminal justice system.

Keywords: DNA Contamination; Forensic Science; Forensic Genetics; Crime Scene Investigation; Evidence Handling; Personal Protective Equipment (PPE); Touch DNA; Chain of Custody; Evidence Collection; Forensic Protocols; Laboratory Contamination Prevention; Crime Scene Preservation; Cross-Contamination; Forensic Training; Evidence Packaging and Transportation; Forensic Technology

Abbreviations: PPE: Personal Protective Equipment, SOPs: Standard Operating Procedures, tDNA: Touch or Trace DNA, ELNs: Electronic Lab Notebooks, ISO: International Organization for Standardization

Introduction

The meticulous handling of crime scenes is a foundational element of forensic science, with the potential to directly impact the success of criminal investigations and the pursuit of justice. Among the various forms of evidence, DNA has become one of the most powerful tools in modern forensics due to its unique ability to link individuals to crime scenes with a high degree of precision. However, the reliability of DNA evidence is contingent upon the integrity of the collection, handling, and processing methods employed throughout the investigation. DNA contamination represents a significant risk that can undermine the validity of forensic evidence. Even small lapses in protocol, whether at the crime scene or in the laboratory, can introduce foreign DNA, leading to misinterpretation of the evidence. Such contamination can have serious legal implications, potentially resulting in wrongful convictions, acquittals of guilty parties, or miscarriages of justice. Beyond This review comprehensively addresses the issue of DNA contamination in forensic investigations. It explores common errors in crime scene handling, evidence collection, and packaging, as well as issues related to laboratory processing and the challenges posed by Touch DNA. Real-world case studies are also presented to illustrate the impact of contamination, providing practical lessons learned from high-profile forensic failures. In addition, this review incorporates findings from a survey study that explores the perspectives of crime scene personnel on the impact of DNA contamination errors. The section, “Crime Scene Personnel Perspectives on DNA Contamination: Survey Insights,” offers valuable insights based on the experiences of newly recruited and well-trained professionals, highlighting which errors are perceived as most critical to address. The survey findings underscore the importance of continuous training, strict adherence to forensic protocols, and the implementation of preventive measures to safeguard the integrity of DNA evidence. Finally, this review presents best practices and preventive strategies aimed at reducing DNA contamination risks, emphasizing the need for continuous improvement and adaptation in forensic practices. By identifying and addressing the most common sources of contamination, forensic professionals can enhance the reliability of DNA evidence and ensure that it withstands scrutiny in court.

Common Errors in Crime Scene Handling

Inadequate Training

Lack of Proper Education and Continuous Training: One of the primary reasons for DNA contamination at crime scenes is the inadequate training of crime scene investigators. Many officers do not receive comprehensive education on the latest forensic techniques and protocols, leading to significant errors in evidence handling. Studies have shown that first responders often lack sufficient training, resulting in mistakes during the early stages of crime scene management [1]. Proper training must incorporate both theoretical knowledge and practical skills to reduce these errors. Continuous education, including regular workshops, simulation exercises, and certification programs, ensures that personnel remain proficient in handling DNA evidence. For example, Bowden (2009) emphasizes the importance of specialized training for first responders to prevent contamination [1]. Emerging technologies and advancements in forensic science necessitate ongoing education. Crime scene investigators must stay updated on new techniques, tools, and best practices through continuous professional development to manage complex crime scenes effectively and minimize contamination risks.

Importance of Specialized Training for Crime Scene Units: Specialized training programs focusing on DNA evidence collection and contamination prevention are essential for equipping crime scene investigators with the expertise needed to handle complex evidence scenarios. Continuous education ensures that forensic scientists and crime scene units stay informed about advancements in forensic science. Federal agencies, such as the FBI, regularly update their training modules to reflect the latest forensic standards. These efforts have been pivotal in improving the quality of investigations and reducing errors in evidence handling [2]. Butler (2015) highlights how such training initiatives help maintain high standards in DNA evidence collection and processing [3]. Training programs should also emphasize interagency collaboration, enabling crime scene units to learn from best practices and case studies across jurisdictions. This exchange of knowledge can contribute to more standardized procedures nationwide, reducing variability and contamination risks.

Improper Use of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)

Failure to Wear Appropriate PPE: Failure to wear appropriate PPE, such as gloves, masks, and protective clothing, significantly contributes to DNA contamination at crime scenes. Investigators who do not adhere to PPE protocols can inadvertently introduce their DNA into the crime scene, compromising evidence integrity. Research shows that even minimal contact by investigators can transfer sufficient DNA to contaminate critical evidence [4]. Strict enforcement of PPE protocols is essential to prevent contamination. Personnel must be trained not only in wearing PPE but also in understanding how to use it effectively in different crime scene environments. Regular drills, inspections, and audits are crucial for ensuring consistent adherence to PPE standards. Continuous reinforcement of the importance of PPE, coupled with mandatory refresher courses, can significantly reduce contamination risks [5,6]. PPE protocols should also be tailored to different crime scene scenarios. For example, indoor and outdoor crime scenes may require different levels of protection, and sensitive evidence, such as touch DNA, demands even stricter contamination controls.

Cross-Contamination Due to Inadequate PPE Usage: Improper handling practices, such as touching multiple surfaces with the same gloves or failing to change gloves between tasks, can lead to cross-contamination of DNA evidence. Cross-contamination compromises evidence integrity, rendering it unreliable for forensic analysis [7]. Best practices for preventing cross-contamination include frequent glove changes, single-use tools, and proper sterilization of equipment. Clear contamination control protocols should be established, including the creation of designated contamination control zones within the crime scene. Color-coded zones can differentiate clean areas from potentially contaminated ones [8]. Disposable PPE should be used whenever possible, particularly for sensitive evidence, such as DNA. Proper handling and disposal of PPE are essential to preserving forensic evidence integrity. Investigators must be trained in PPE protocols and meticulous management to prevent cross-contamination.

Poor Scene Preservation

Not Securing the Crime Scene Adequately: Poorly secured crime scenes are highly susceptible to contamination from unauthorized personnel, environmental factors, and mishandling by investigators. Research emphasizes that effective barriers and restricted access are essential for preserving evidence integrity. Crime scenes are best secured by establishing controlled entry and exit points, marked with crime scene tape and reinforced by physical barriers to prevent unauthorized access [9,10]. Crime scene management should also incorporate the use of visible signage, security personnel, and technologies, such as surveillance cameras and motion detectors, to monitor and control access. These measures ensure that the scene remains uncontaminated and that evidence is preserved throughout the investigation [11-13].

Unauthorized Personnel Access: Unauthorized personnel access to crime scenes poses significant risks to evidence integrity, especially when DNA is involved. Allowing untrained or non-essential personnel to enter the crime scene can lead to contamination, making it difficult to analyze and interpret the evidence accurately. Research consistently emphasizes limiting access to trained personnel to preserve evidence integrity [10,14]. To enforce access control, crime scene units should implement rigorous systems, including physical logbooks, digital access control systems, and biometric identification, to ensure that only authorized individuals can enter the scene. These measures protect the scene from contamination and provide an audit trail for accountability. In specialized investigations, such as wildlife crime scenes or large-scale disaster sites, restricting access becomes even more critical due to the sensitive nature of the evidence. Strict access protocols safeguard evidence, ensuring it remains uncontaminated and reliable for forensic analysis [13,15].

Inadequate Documentation

Failure to Properly Document the Scene: Accurate and thorough documentation of the crime scene is crucial for preserving evidence integrity and ensuring successful prosecution. Inadequate or incomplete documentation can lead to misinterpretation of evidence, overlooked contamination issues, and the dismissal of critical evidence in court. Gaps in documentation significantly compromise the legal process, often resulting in challenges during prosecution or the exclusion of key evidence [16,17]. Modern tools, such as 3D scanning, high-resolution photography, and specialized software for creating detailed crime scene maps, should be used to enhance documentation accuracy. These tools allow for precise recording of the crime scene, preserving vital context and reducing the likelihood of errors [18,19].

Incomplete Chain of Custody Records: Maintaining a complete and accurate chain of custody is critical to demonstrating that evidence has not been tampered with or contaminated. Incomplete or inaccurate records cast doubt on evidence integrity, potentially rendering it inadmissible. Forensic investigations are vulnerable when chain-of-custody records are poorly maintained, leading to significant legal challenges [16,18,19]. Electronic chain-of-custody systems improve accuracy and traceability, enabling real-time updates and reducing human error associated with manual record-keeping. Regular audits of chain-of-custody records are recommended to identify potential gaps that could compromise investigations [18,20].

Errors During Evidence Collection

Improper Collection Techniques

Use of Incorrect Tools and Techniques: Using incorrect tools or techniques during evidence collection is one of the primary causes of contamination. For example, non-sterile swabs, containers, or collecting samples in non-sterile environments can introduce contaminants that alter DNA or other biological evidence. Research emphasizes the importance of using sterile practices during evidence collection [21]. Standard operating procedures (SOPs) should explicitly require sterile tools and environments for all phases of evidence collection. Adherence to these SOPs is essential, and regular, hands-on training should be conducted to ensure that investigators are proficient in the correct use of tools and techniques [22].

Lack of Sterile Collection Methods: Maintaining sterile conditions during evidence collection is critical to preventing contamination. This includes the use of new gloves, sterile swabs, and clean containers for each piece of evidence collected. Research has shown that failure to uphold sterile methods can severely compromise the reliability of evidence, leading to challenges in legal proceedings [23]. Crime scene investigators should be equipped with standardized sterile collection kits as part of their essential gear. These kits must be regularly replenished, and their contents checked to ensure that all items remain sterile and within their usability dates. Implementing checklists during the evidence collection process ensures that each step is performed correctly, reducing the likelihood of human error [24]. Such checklists act as procedural safeguards, ensuring that investigators adhere to sterile practices consistently. In resource-limited environments, maintaining sterile conditions can present additional challenges. In such cases, rigorous quality control measures must be implemented to prevent cross-contamination. For example, prioritizing the use of limited sterile supplies for the most critical evidence and establishing contamination control protocols can optimize the use of available resources. Regular audits of evidence collection procedures help identify gaps in sterile practices and ensure that all team members are adhering to established protocols [25].

Contamination from Crime Scene Personnel

DNA Transfer from Investigators: DNA transfer occurs when investigators inadvertently introduce DNA from themselves or other sources onto evidence, often through direct contact, respiratory droplets, or contaminated tools. This can happen in two ways: direct DNA transfer and indirect (secondary) DNA transfer. Direct transfer occurs when DNA is transferred directly from the person handling the item, such as when an investigator touches an object and leaves their DNA behind. In contrast, indirect (secondary) DNA transfer involves the DNA being transferred via an intermediary, for example, when DNA from an object is picked up on gloves and subsequently transferred to another object. Research consistently highlights DNA transfer as a significant issue in forensic investigations, one that can severely compromise the integrity of forensic evidence. This complicates efforts to distinguish between genuine evidentiary material and contamination, which can lead to false inclusions or exclusions in DNA profiling [26,27]. Implementing strict contamination prevention protocols is crucial to mitigate these risks and ensure the reliability of forensic evidence. Preventive measures such as mandatory use of masks, gloves, and single-use tools are essential for reducing the risk of secondary transfer. In addition, disposable protective gear, including gowns and shoe covers, can further reduce potential contamination [28,29]. Strict personal hygiene protocols, including tying back hair, avoiding face-touching, and maintaining clean, dedicated workspaces, are also critical for minimizing transfer risks. Regular sanitation of tools, surfaces, and equipment used during evidence collection helps preserve the integrity of forensic evidence [26,29]. Human Error and Mishandling of Evidence: Human error, including mishandling evidence or failing to follow established protocols, is a common cause of DNA contamination in forensic investigations. These errors can occur at any stage of the evidence collection process, from initial recovery to packaging and transportation. Studies indicate that improper handling, such as failing to change gloves or using non-sterile tools, can compromise the integrity of the evidence, ultimately affecting investigative outcomes [28,29]. To minimize human error, crime scene units must enforce strict adherence to protocols. Regular, comprehensive training ensures that all personnel are up-to-date on best practices and procedural standards. Implementing a buddy system, where investigators review each other’s work, fosters accountability and helps catch mistakes before they result in contamination. Peer-checking systems and continuous improvement programs that encourage feedback, learning from mistakes, and ongoing education are vital for creating a culture of excellence [27,30]. Supervision by experienced personnel and regular audits of crime scene procedures can further enhance the quality of evidence handling and reduce the likelihood of errors. Environmental Factors Impact of Weather Conditions: Adverse weather conditions— such as rain, wind, extreme temperatures, and humidity—pose significant risks to crime scene evidence. Weather can introduce contaminants and accelerate the degradation of biological evidence, making it less viable for forensic analysis. Proper scene preservation techniques are essential to mitigate these risks. Studies highlight the importance of using protective measures, such as tents, portable shelters, and weather-resistant containers, to shield evidence from environmental exposure [31,32]. In addition to protective equipment, crime scene units should use weather-resistant tools designed for evidence collection and transportation. These tools, including sealed containers and protective coverings, prevent moisture and debris from contaminating or degrading evidence. Rapid response protocols tailored to specific weather scenarios ensure that evidence is secured quickly and effectively. For instance, immediate deployment of protective coverings during sudden rainfall can prevent water from washing away or diluting trace evidence [33]. Contingency plans for extreme weather events, such as storms or high winds, should include backup protective equipment, clear communication strategies, and designated roles for team members to respond efficiently to changing conditions. Presence Of Contaminants in the Scene: Environmental contaminants, including dirt, dust, pollen, and biological material from animals, pose significant risks to the integrity of forensic evidence. These contaminants can obscure or degrade biological samples, making them difficult to analyze. Identifying and mitigating these factors is crucial for preserving evidence. Conducting a pre-scene assessment allows investigators to identify potential contamination sources and plan their evidence collection strategy accordingly [7,34]. To reduce contamination risks, crime scene units should implement environmental controls, such as air filters, decontamination stations, and sensors that monitor changes in temperature, humidity, or airborne particles. Collaboration with forensic experts, including forensic entomologists and environmental scientists, can provide valuable insights into managing environmental contaminants and developing specialized protocols for different surfaces (e.g., sandy or wet areas) [34-36].

Errors During Evidence Packaging and Transportation

Incorrect Packaging

Use of Non-Sterile Packaging Materials: Packaging evidence in non-sterile materials significantly increases the risk of contamination. Non-sterile packaging can introduce foreign DNA or contaminants, leading to the degradation of sensitive evidence, such as biological samples, and potentially rendering it unusable in court. Research highlights the importance of using sterile, single-use containers and packaging materials designed for forensic evidence collection and transportation [37,38]. Strict packaging protocols mandating the use of sterile materials should be followed. Procedures for verifying the sterility of packaging materials, including labeling or certifications, can prevent the accidental use of non-sterile items. This approach aligns with forensic guidelines and international standards that advocate for appropriate packaging to preserve evidence integrity [39]. Proper storage of sterile materials before use is equally important. Packaging supplies should be stored in sealed containers within clean, controlled environments to maintain sterility. Regular audits of packaging supplies and storage areas further ensure compliance with these protocols [40].

Inappropriate Sealing and Labelling: Proper sealing and labeling of evidence are critical to preventing contamination and maintaining the chain of custody. Improper sealing allows contaminants to enter the packaging, particularly during transportation and storage. Research emphasizes the necessity of using tamper-evident seals to safeguard evidence and provide clear indications if the packaging is compromised [40]. Improper sealing can degrade DNA and other forensic materials, undermining the reliability of evidence. Accurate labeling protocols are also essential for tracking evidence throughout the investigation. Implementing standardized labeling systems (e.g., barcodes, QR codes) can streamline the process and reduce the likelihood of manual errors [39]. These systems should integrate with chain-of-custody software to provide real-time updates and precise tracking of evidence. Training personnel on proper sealing and labeling techniques ensures proficiency in these critical tasks. Periodic refresher courses and audits reinforce the importance of adherence to established protocols.

The Appropriate Packaging

The choice of packaging materials is crucial for preserving biological evidence. Inappropriate packaging—such as non-breathable plastic bags—can lead to contamination, degradation, or loss of vital forensic information. Research suggests that biological evidence, particularly blood-stained fabrics or organic materials, should be packaged in breathable materials (e.g., paper bags, cardboard boxes) to prevent mold, bacteria, and other microorganisms from compromising DNA samples [41,42]. Paper bags are often recommended for packaging biological evidence because they allow moisture to escape, preventing the buildup of humidity inside the package. This is particularly important when dealing with wet or blood-soaked evidence, as plastic bags can trap moisture, creating an environment conducive to microbial growth and DNA degradation. For example, forensic guidelines advocate using paper bags for the preservation of DNA evidence to minimize moisture retention and reduce the risk of microbial contamination that could render the evidence unusable in court [43].

In addition to paper bags, forensic protocols may recommend using cardboard boxes or other breathable containers for certain types of forensic samples, such as dry or fragile biological specimens. These materials offer protection while maintaining airflow, which helps prevent the degradation of evidence over time. Cardboard boxes are particularly useful for storing larger items that need protection from physical damage during transportation while still allowing for proper ventilation [42]. Selecting the appropriate packaging materials should be based on the specific characteristics of the evidence being collected. For instance, wet evidence like blood-soaked clothing should be air-dried as soon as possible before being placed in breathable packaging. On the other hand, dry biological specimens can be securely packaged in boxes to prevent physical damage while maintaining necessary airflow. Moreover, all packaging materials must be sterile and free from contaminants before use. Forensic guidelines emphasize that packaging materials should not introduce foreign contaminants that could compromise the evidence. Using pre-sterilized, single-use packaging supplies can help mitigate this risk [44]. Strict protocols in selecting and preparing packaging materials are critical to maintaining the chain of custody and ensuring evidence remains viable for forensic analysis [41]. Proper packaging is not only about protecting the physical integrity of the evidence but also preserving its forensic value by preventing contamination and degradation. By adhering to best practices and guidelines, crime scene investigators can significantly enhance the reliability of the evidence and its admissibility in court.

Transportation Issues

Exposure to Contaminants During Transport: During transport, evidence can be exposed to various contaminants, which can compromise its integrity if not properly protected. Research underscores the importance of using sealed, tamper-evident containers to safeguard evidence from external contaminants. These containers are essential in preventing unauthorized access and protecting evidence from environmental factors such as dust, moisture, or biological contaminants [42]. Specialized transport containers designed for forensic evidence can offer additional protection, such as reinforced seals, shock absorption, and resistance to environmental extremes, ensuring that evidence remains intact and uncontaminated throughout transportation [45]. In addition to proper packaging, integrating advanced technologies like GPS tracking and environmental monitoring devices can significantly improve the security and safety of evidence during transport. These devices monitor real-time environmental variables such as temperature, humidity, and physical impacts, providing critical data that allow crime scene units to respond promptly to any issues that may arise. For instance, if the temperature inside a container fluctuates beyond acceptable limits, the monitoring system can alert personnel to take corrective action before the evidence is compromised [46]. This proactive approach minimizes risks and ensures that evidence arrives at its destination in the same condition as when it was collected.

Lack of Temperature Control: Certain types of biological evidence, including DNA samples, bodily fluids, and tissues, require specific temperature conditions to prevent degradation. Failure to maintain proper temperature control during transport can lead to the breakdown of biological materials, rendering them unusable for forensic analysis. Research highlights the importance of using portable refrigeration units and temperature-monitoring devices to ensure that evidence is consistently kept within the required temperature range during transportation [47]. To mitigate the risk of temperature- related degradation, crime scene units should establish clear protocols for handling temperature-sensitive evidence. These protocols should include the use of insulated or refrigerated containers for transport, as well as continuous temperature monitoring to detect any deviations. Regular calibration and maintenance of temperature control equipment are essential to prevent malfunctions that could jeopardize the integrity of the evidence. Routine checks of equipment ensure that it is functioning correctly before and during transportation. Personnel must be thoroughly trained on the importance of maintaining proper temperature conditions during transport and should be equipped with contingency plans in case of equipment failure. These plans might involve having backup refrigeration units or ensuring that transport routes allow for quick intervention if a temperature excursion occurs. By establishing these measures, crime scene units can significantly reduce the likelihood of temperature-related degradation of critical forensic evidence [23].

Role of Touch DNA in Forensic Investigations

Touch DNA

Touch or trace DNA (tDNA) refers to the minuscule amounts of genetic material left behind when a person touches an object or surface [48]. This type of DNA evidence originates from skin cells, sweat, or other bodily substances transferred through contact. Touch DNA plays a significant role in forensic investigations because it can be recovered from various items, such as tools, weapons, and clothing, making it valuable for linking suspects to crime scenes [48-51]. Touch DNA extends the scope of forensic investigations by enabling law enforcement to identify perpetrators even in the absence of more substantial biological evidence, such as blood or saliva. However, collecting and analyzing touch DNA presents unique challenges. The amount of DNA recovered can vary significantly depending on factors such as the time elapsed between deposition and collection, the type of surface touched, environmental conditions, and the collection techniques used [52-67]. For instance, smooth surfaces like glass or metal tend to retain DNA more effectively than porous materials, which can absorb and degrade the DNA [53].

Methods such as swabbing, tape-lifting, and vacuum collection are commonly used to recover touch DNA, but their effectiveness varies depending on the surface and the amount of DNA present. Advances in DNA profiling have improved the ability to analyze small samples, but challenges remain, particularly with degraded or mixed DNA samples. Environmental factors, including sunlight, moisture, and temperature extremes, further complicate DNA preservation, necessitating precautions during evidence collection and analysis [33,56]. The sensitivity of touch DNA techniques also increases the risk of secondary transfer, where DNA is inadvertently transferred from one surface to another, potentially compromising the evidence [68]. This underscores the importance of strict contamination control measures throughout the investigative process, from evidence collection to laboratory analysis.

Sensitivity and Contamination Risks of Touch DNA

While the sensitivity of touch DNA analysis allows for detecting minimal biological material, it also significantly increases the risk of contamination [18]. Modern DNA analysis techniques are highly sensitive, capable of detecting even trace amounts of DNA. However, this heightened sensitivity means that even the slightest contamination— whether from the environment, crime scene personnel, or laboratory staff—can compromise the evidence. Research shows that the longer the time between DNA deposition and collection, the greater the risk of contamination, underscoring the need for rigorous contamination prevention protocols [53-54]. One of the main challenges with touch DNA is that contamination can occur in subtle ways, including secondary transfer through investigators or equipment. Forensic experts must maintain vigilant contamination control from the moment evidence is collected until it is analyzed in the laboratory [59,69]. Studies emphasize the importance of using validated collection techniques, such as careful selection of appropriate swabs and controlled environments during evidence collection [48]. Technological advancements in DNA analysis, while improving the ability to analyze small samples, have also made the system more vulnerable to contamination. Forensic laboratories must implement advanced decontamination protocols, including dedicated workspaces, sterilization of equipment between analyses, and frequent environmental DNA assessments, to minimize contamination risks. By adhering to best practices, forensic scientists can reduce contamination risks and maximize the utility of touch DNA evidence in solving crimes. Maintaining strict contamination control throughout the entire forensic process—from crime scene to laboratory—is critical to ensuring that touch DNA remains a powerful and reliable tool in the justice system [63].

Laboratory Processing Errors

Contamination in the Lab

Inadequate Lab Cleanliness and Sterilization: Maintaining strict cleanliness and sterilization standards in forensic laboratories is crucial for preventing contamination, which can compromise DNA evidence integrity. Cross-contamination due to inadequate lab cleanliness can result in unreliable forensic results, making it imperative that labs implement rigorous cleaning protocols, use sterile workspaces, and adhere to strict sterilization practices [69]. Designating clean zones within the lab, where only sterile materials and equipment are permitted, can further reduce contamination risks. Regular audits of lab cleanliness and adherence to these protocols ensure ongoing compliance with critical standards [70]. In addition to routine cleaning, forensic laboratories should conduct regular environmental control sampling as part of their quality assurance program. This involves collecting samples from various parts of the lab, including workstations, equipment, and ventilation systems, to monitor potential contaminants. These environmental samples allow labs to detect low levels of contamination that may not be visible but could impact forensic analysis. Implementing environmental monitoring programs ensures that contamination risks are proactively identified and addressed, maintaining the highest standards of cleanliness and sterility throughout the facility [69].

Improper Handling and Storage of Samples: Proper handling and storage of samples are vital to preserving the integrity of DNA evidence in the lab. Errors during these processes can lead to contamination or degradation, rendering the evidence unusable. Research highlights the importance of following strict protocols for sample handling and storage, including the use of sterile containers and controlled environments [37]. Automated systems for handling and storing samples can further reduce human error, promoting consistent and accurate evidence management [21]. Continuous training of lab personnel on updated handling techniques reinforces the importance of following established protocols, ensuring the integrity of DNA evidence [71].

Technical Errors

Mislabelling and Misidentification of Samples: Mislabeling or misidentification of samples in the lab can lead to incorrect results, potentially compromising the evidence. Research emphasizes the importance of accurate labeling and thorough documentation to preserve the chain of custody and ensure reliable forensic results. Implementing barcode systems and electronic labeling tools can enhance the accuracy and traceability of samples throughout the forensic process [18]. Regular cross-checks, verification procedures, and the use of electronic lab notebooks (ELNs) can streamline documentation, reducing the likelihood of mislabeling or misidentification [72].

Inaccurate DNA Extraction and Analysis Techniques: Errors in DNA extraction and analysis can introduce contamination or produce inaccurate results, jeopardizing investigations. The use of validated and standardized protocols is essential for ensuring accurate and reliable DNA analysis. Regular proficiency testing for lab personnel, alongside adherence to international forensic standards, can improve the consistency of results [18]. Investing in advanced DNA extraction and analysis technologies enhances the accuracy and efficiency of forensic processes. Continuous education on the latest techniques and tools ensures that lab personnel maintain proficiency and uphold the highest standards of forensic analysis [72].

Visual Summary of Common Errors and Best Practices

To provide a clear and concise overview of the common errors in forensic DNA handling and the corresponding best practices to mitigate these risks, a flowchart has been created (Figure 1). This visual representation highlights the key errors that can occur at various stages of the forensic process, from crime scene handling to laboratory processing, and outlines the best practices that can help prevent DNA contamination.

Case Studies and Real-World Examples

Historical Cases of DNA Contamination

Numerous high-profile cases have demonstrated the severe consequences of DNA contamination, emphasizing the importance of stringent forensic protocols. One of the most well-known examples is the O.J. Simpson case, where allegations of evidence mishandling and potential contamination cast doubt on the integrity of the DNA evidence presented. Concerns about cross-contamination and improper storage contributed to the defense’s arguments and the ultimate not-guilty verdict, highlighting the importance of proper handling of forensic evidence to avoid public mistrust and legal challenges [73]. Another notable example is the Amanda Knox trial, where DNA contamination played a pivotal role in both her initial conviction and eventual acquittal. The mishandling of key DNA evidence, including contamination concerns, was critical in her defense, leading to her eventual exoneration. This case underscored the risks associated with inadequate forensic protocols and the consequences of failing to maintain rigorous standards during crime scene investigations [74]. These examples illustrate the necessity of strict adherence to forensic protocols to prevent contamination, ensure accurate results, and uphold the integrity of the justice system [75,76].

Lessons Learned from High-Profile Cases

The lessons learned from these high-profile cases reinforce the importance of stringent forensic protocols, continuous training, and adherence to best practices for crime scene investigators. The errors made during these cases demonstrate the potentially devastating consequences of contamination and mishandling, which can lead to wrongful convictions or acquittals. These real-world examples serve as powerful reminders that even minor lapses in protocol can have far-reaching implications for both victims and defendants. Reviewing such cases in training programs offers practical insights into the critical nature of maintaining evidence integrity. For example, the O.J. Simpson case offers valuable lessons on the necessity of proper evidence handling, storage, and chain of custody. Similarly, the Amanda Knox case highlights the importance of adhering to forensic protocols to prevent contamination and the challenges that arise when these protocols are not followed [74]. By incorporating these historical cases into training programs, forensic investigators can better understand the importance of following rigorous procedures, making learning more engaging and relevant [77,78]. Moreover, forensic institutions and law enforcement agencies can use these examples to develop new guidelines and emphasize the importance of continuous education and practical exercises that simulate real-world conditions. Drawing on lessons from the past, the forensic community can improve practices and reduce the likelihood of future errors that could undermine public trust in the justice system [79-82].

Crime Scene Personnel Perspectives on DNA Contamination: Survey Insights

To further explore the impact of common errors in forensic DNA handling, a survey was conducted to assess the perceptions of both newly recruited and well-trained crime scene personnel. The goal of the survey was to quantify the perceived severity of various common errors in the forensic process and to identify which areas are seen as most critical to address for contamination prevention.

Survey Methodology

The survey was distributed to a total of 100 participants: 50 newly recruited crime scene personnel and 50 well-trained professionals with extensive experience in forensic investigations. The participants were carefully selected to represent both early-career individuals and seasoned experts, providing a balanced perspective on the impact of errors in DNA handling.

• Survey Structure: Participants were asked to rate the potential impact of seven common errors in forensic DNA handling on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 representing the least impactful and 10 representing the most severe. The errors were clearly defined, and participants were instructed to consider factors such as the likelihood of the error occurring, the ease of mitigation, and the potential consequences for the integrity of DNA evidence.

• Data Collection: The survey was conducted anonymously to encourage candid responses. To provide context, participants were presented with examples and case studies related to each error. This helped participants to ground their ratings in real-world scenarios, drawing from both theoretical knowledge and practical experience.

• Data Analysis: The results were analyzed by calculating the average impact score for each error across the two groups. The scores from the newly recruited personnel and the welltrained professionals were combined to provide an overall assessment of the perceived impact of each error. These results were then visually represented in a bar chart to highlight the relative importance of addressing each issue.

Survey Results

The survey revealed several key insights into the perceptions of common errors in forensic DNA handling (Figure 2):

• Inadequate Training (Score: 9.2): Both newly recruited and well-trained professionals recognized inadequate training as a significant issue that can lead to widespread problems across all stages of an investigation. The impact score reflects the critical need for continuous education and certification to prevent errors.

• Improper PPE Use (Score: 7.8): Participants noted that while improper PPE use can lead to contamination, it is somewhat mitigated by other safeguards in the process. However, ensuring strict PPE enforcement and regular audits remains essential to maintaining the integrity of the crime scene.

• Poor Scene Preservation (Score: 8.8): Poor preservation of the crime scene was identified as a major risk, as it can allow contaminants to compromise the evidence, leading to significant issues during forensic analysis.

• Improper Collection Techniques (Score: 9.0): The importance of using proper tools and techniques during evidence collection was emphasized, as mistakes in this area directly threaten the integrity of DNA samples.

• Improper Packaging (Score: 7.5): While improper packaging can affect the preservation of evidence, the survey participants acknowledged that proper collection and handling practices can mitigate some of these risks.

• Lab Contamination (Score: 9.3): Lab contamination was rated as the most critical issue, given its potential to invalidate DNA evidence. Participants stressed the need for rigorous lab protocols and cleanliness standards to prevent contamination at this stage.

• Human Error (Score: 8.2): Human error, which can occur at any stage of the forensic process, was seen as a significant concern. Participants highlighted the importance of supervision, regular audits, and a culture of continuous improvement to minimize these risks.

Implications of the Survey Findings

The findings from this survey reinforce the critical need for strict adherence to best practices and continuous education in forensic DNA handling. Inadequate training and lab contamination were highlighted as the most pressing issues, reflecting the importance of investing in ongoing professional development and maintaining rigorous standards in laboratory environments. The survey also points to the necessity of implementing preventive measures at every stage of the forensic process, from the initial handling of the crime scene to the final analysis of DNA in the lab. By addressing these common errors through targeted interventions, forensic teams can significantly reduce the risk of contamination and ensure the reliability of DNA evidence in court. This study serves as a reminder that both new and experienced crime scene personnel recognize the gravity of these issues and the need for continuous improvement in forensic practices. The insights gained from this survey can inform future training programs, policy development, and procedural updates, ultimately contributing to higher standards of forensic investigation.

Additional Points and Updates

Use of Technology and Automation

The integration of advanced technological tools in crime scene investigations is revolutionizing forensic science. Digital forensics tools, automated evidence collection devices, and AI-driven crime scene analysis software are significantly enhancing the efficiency, accuracy, and scope of investigations. For instance, machine learning algorithms can process large datasets to identify patterns and anomalies that may be overlooked by human investigators, leading to more precise crime scene reconstructions and faster resolution of cases [83]. These technologies reduce the burden on investigators and improve the overall quality of forensic analysis. Drones and robotics are also becoming crucial tools in crime scene management. Drones equipped with high-resolution cameras and sensors can capture aerial views and create detailed 3D mappings of crime scenes, providing investigators with a comprehensive perspective that enhances evidence collection and analysis [84]. Robotics, on the other hand, can be used to collect evidence in hazardous or hard-to-reach areas, minimizing the risk of contamination and ensuring the safety of forensic teams. By automating aspects of evidence collection, these technologies help maintain the integrity of evidence while reducing human error [85].

Standardization of Procedures

The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) has developed specific standards for forensic laboratories and crime scene investigations, emphasizing the importance of global standardization to prevent contamination and ensure consistency across investigations [86]. The adoption of ISO standards not only enhances the credibility and reliability of forensic results but also ensures that forensic practices are aligned with global best practices. Regular training and certification programs are essential to ensure that forensic personnel are well-versed in these standards and can implement them effectively. Collaboration between different law enforcement agencies and forensic laboratories plays a key role in maintaining uniform standards. Establishing interagency task forces and joint training programs allows for the sharing of best practices and fosters consistency in forensic procedures across jurisdictions [87]. Regular meetings, workshops, and collaborative research initiatives promote continuous improvement in forensic practices and ensure that all parties work toward the same high standards.

Impact of Legal and Ethical Considerations

The legal ramifications of evidence contamination can be severe, including case dismissals, wrongful convictions, and appeals. Maintaining the integrity of DNA evidence is critical to the judicial process. Several high-profile cases have demonstrated how contamination can undermine legal proceedings, making it vital for forensic teams to follow meticulous evidence handling procedures [88]. Regular training on legal standards and the potential consequences of contamination reinforces the importance of these practices and ensures that forensic work aligns with judicial requirements [89]. Ethical responsibilities are equally important for crime scene investigators. Forensic professionals must uphold the highest ethical standards to prevent contamination and ensure the accuracy of their work, as their actions directly impact the pursuit of justice. Developing a code of ethics, providing ongoing training on ethical issues, and fostering open discussions about ethical dilemmas are essential for building a culture of integrity within forensic teams [90]. This commitment to ethical practice not only protects the rights of individuals involved in investigations but also maintains public trust in the forensic process.

Public and Juror Perception

High-profile cases involving contamination can significantly impact public trust in forensic science and law enforcement. Engaging with the public through outreach programs and transparent communication is critical for maintaining and restoring confidence in forensic practices. Providing accurate, timely information about forensic investigations helps mitigate the negative impact of contamination cases and reinforces the public’s understanding of the rigorous standards in place [91]. Educating jurors about the potential for contamination and the stringent protocols followed to prevent it is equally important. Jurors must be able to make informed decisions based on a clear understanding of forensic evidence and its limitations. Developing educational materials and training programs for jurors, in collaboration with legal and educational institutions, can enhance their knowledge and improve the fairness of trials [92]. This ensures that jurors are better equipped to evaluate the evidence presented in court, contributing to more just outcomes.

Future Directions in Contamination Prevention

The future of contamination prevention in forensic science lies in ongoing research and innovation. Advances in decontamination techniques, improved storage solutions, and next-generation forensic analysis technologies are critical areas of focus for researchers. Supporting research and development initiatives in these areas is essential for driving innovation and improving contamination prevention methods [89]. Collaborating with academic institutions and research organizations ensures that forensic practices continue to benefit from the latest scientific advancements [90]. Continuous improvement programs and feedback mechanisms should be established within forensic laboratories and crime scene units to promote ongoing learning and adaptation. Encouraging a culture of innovation and flexibility within the forensic science community allows professionals to stay ahead of emerging challenges and incorporate new technologies and methods into their work [91]. By fostering an environment of continuous improvement, forensic professionals can ensure that their practices evolve alongside advancements in science and technology.

Conclusion

DNA evidence plays a pivotal role in modern forensic investigations, offering the ability to link individuals to crime scenes with unparalleled precision. However, the integrity of DNA evidence is contingent on meticulous handling throughout every stage of the forensic process, from crime scene management to laboratory analysis. This review has explored the most common errors that lead to DNA contamination, highlighting the critical need for best practices to mitigate these risks. Key sources of contamination, such as inadequate training, improper use of personal protective equipment (PPE), poor crime scene preservation, and errors in evidence collection, packaging, and transportation, all pose significant threats to the reliability of DNA evidence. Additionally, the sensitivity of Touch DNA further complicates the contamination prevention process, necessitating even stricter protocols and more advanced technologies. Real-world case studies, such as those involving high-profile cases like the O.J. Simpson and Amanda Knox trials, underscore the profound legal implications of DNA contamination. These cases serve as cautionary tales, emphasizing the importance of rigorous forensic protocols and continuous education for crime scene personnel [93,94].

The findings from the survey study presented in the section “Crime Scene Personnel Perspectives on DNA Contamination: Survey Insights” provide valuable insights from professionals in the field. The study reveals that both newly recruited and well-trained crime scene personnel recognize the severity of common errors and the need for continuous improvement. The perspectives gathered in this survey reinforce the importance of addressing key issues such as inadequate training and lab contamination, which were identified as the most critical concerns. To safeguard the integrity of DNA evidence, forensic professionals must prioritize ongoing education, strict adherence to best practices, and the implementation of preventive measures at every stage of the forensic process. By continuously refining procedures, adopting new technologies, and learning from past mistakes, the forensic community can reduce the risk of DNA contamination and ensure that DNA evidence remains a powerful and reliable tool in the pursuit of justice.

Acknowledgment

I would like to express my deep gratitude to all individuals who contributed to this study for their unwavering commitment to improving forensic DNA practices. Special thanks to the survey participants— both newly recruited and experienced crime scene personnel— whose insights have been invaluable in identifying critical areas for contamination prevention. Your contributions have been essential in shaping a more reliable and effective approach to forensic investigations.

References

1. Bowden RL (2009) DNA Forensics and First Responders. Sam Houston State University Institutional Repository.
2. Stevens R (2021) Career Path: Becoming a Crime Scene Investigator. Merrimack College Digital Repository.
3. Butler JM (2015) US Initiatives to Strengthen Forensic Science & International Standards in Forensic DNA. Forensic Science International: Genetics 18: 4-20.
4. Balaskó Á, Biró C, Csöme C, Kakuja I (2020) How to Respond to a Crime Scene Contaminated with Radioactive Material? Belügyi Szemle: A Rendészettudományi Folyóirat 3(Special Issue): 34-50.
5. Tod A, Chapman MB (2019) Recommendations for the Development of a Training Program for the Deployment of Forensic Graduates to DVI Operations. Murdoch University Research Portal.
6. Haddleton E, Chapman B (2022) Investigating the Best Practice Techniques for the Swabbing of DNA from Non-Porous Surfaces. Murdoch University Research Repository.
7. Pirrie D, Ruffell A, Dawson L, McKinley J (2021) Crime Scenes: Geoforensic Assessment, Sampling, and Examination. GeoscienceWorld 2327(1): 131-150.
8. Bhore SJ (2023) Countering Biothreats from Low-Effort Toxins: Some Highlights from the Chemical and Biological Investigation, Evidence, and Countermeasures Training. Preprints org.
9. Engelbrecht M (2016) The Perceptions of Private Security Officer Behaviour on the Preliminary Investigation of Housebreaking Crime Scenes in Berea, Durban. CORE.
10. Touroo R, Fitch A (2016) Identification, Collection, and Preservation of Veterinary Forensic Evidence: On Scene and During the Postmortem Examination. Veterinary Pathology 53(4): 695-704.
11. Mwatu W (2022) Digital Forensics Framework for Combating Cyber-crime. KCA University Institutional Repository.
12. Rowlingson R (2004) A Ten Step Process for Forensic Readiness. International Journal of Digital Evidence 2(3).
13. Fadason DW, Adelaie S, Bala AS (2023) Access, Sharing, Preservation, and Use of Crime Information by Stakeholders in Sabon Tasha, Kaduna-Nigeria. Zamfara Journal of Politics 6(1): 132-149.
14. Chepkemoi CJ (2018) Adoptability Model for Digital Forensic Evidence in Kenya. Kabarak University Library.
15. Cooper JE, Cooper ME, Budgen P (2009) Wildlife Crime Scene Investigation: Techniques, Tools and Technology. Endangered Species Research 9(3): 229-238.
16. Omar B (2016) AND CRIME SCENE MANAGEMENT. ISSAfrica 3(2): 45-56.
17. Bundi M (2016) The State of Forensic Investigation in Kenya. University of Nairobi Repository 7(1): 98-115.
18. Alketbi SK (2023) Maintaining the Chain of Custody: Anti-Contamination Measures for Trace DNA Evidence. International Journal of Science and Research Archive 8(2): 457-461.
19. Smith JH, Horne JS (2024) The Processing of Forensic Investigative Leads in Criminal Investigations Conducted by the South African Police Service. International Journal of Social Science Research and Review 10(1): 89-103.
20. Ludwig A (2011) The Effective Use of Forensic Science in the Investigation of Volume Crimes in Scotland. STAX Strathclyde University 9(3): 45-60.
21. Dass G, Sharma V, Malla MA, Singh G (2021) Prevalence and Recovery of Microorganisms from Containers Used for the Collection of Forensic Biological Samples. The Open Microbiology Journal 15(1): 159-167.
22. Balk C (2015) Reducing Contamination in Forensic Science. Themis: Research Journal of Justice Studies and Forensic Science 3(1): 12-29.
23. Barbaro A (2022) Biological Evidence Collection. Manual of Crime Scene Investigation, Taylor & Francis 1(1): 45-58.
24. Kaur A, Jamal F, Shikha A, Ramesh A, Sojan A (2021) Collection, Preservation, and Packaging: Forensic Evidence Management. Crime Scene Management Handbook 4(1): 91-105.
25. Appuhamy P (2022) Challenges in Forensic Sampling in The Pre-Analytical Phase While Maintaining Chain of Custody in Sri Lanka and System Improvement in the Medico-Legal Unit. Medico-Legal Journal of Sri Lanka 10(2): 85-92.
26. Wangutusi DF (2017) DNA Evidence and the Challenges Faced by DNA Evidence in the Justice Sector of Uganda Today. Kampala International University Repository 5(1): 34-48.
27. Crider T (2016) Physical Evidence in Sexual Assault Investigations. Practical Aspects of Rape Investigation, Taylor & Francis 5(1): 89-106.
28. Nurse KRD (2018) Forensic Experts' Best Practices in DNA Collection, Analysis, and Testimony: A Delphi Study. ProQuest 3(2): 22-37.
29. Hauhart RC, Menius KR (2014) DNA Evidence: Examining Police Officers' Knowledge of Handling Procedures in a Mid-Size Department. International Journal of Criminology and Sociology 3(1): 25-41.
30. Singh AK, Singh A (2019) The Legal Aspects of Forensic Science with Reference to Crime Scene Investigation. IUP Law Review 4(2): 78-92.
31. Maithil BP (2007) Forensic Expert at Crime Scene: Threat to Health and Safety from Hazardous Environment: Some Basic Guidelines. The Indian Police Journal 54(2): 28-35.
32. Zannin A, Huber L (2017) Crime Scene Investigation. Manual of Forensic Science, Taylor & Francis 1(1): 5-22.
33. Alketbi SK, Goodwin W (2019) The Effect of Time and Environmental Conditions on Touch DNA. Forensic Science International: Genetics Supplement Series 7(1): 701-703.
34. Rao PK, Pandey G (2020) Biological Evidence and Their Handling. In: P Pandey & S Dwivedi (Eds.)., Forensic Science: A Comprehensive Reference Wiley 1(3): 45-58.
35. Fitzpatrick RW, Raven MD, Forrester ST (2009). A Systematic Approach to Soil Forensics: Criminal Case Studies Involving Transference from Crime Scene to Forensic Evidence. In: R Pye & SJ Blott (Eds.), Environmental Soil Forensics. Springer 2(1): 215-240.
36. Alketbi SK, Goodwin W (2019) The Effect of Sandy Surfaces on Touch DNA. Journal of Forensic, Legal & Investigative Sciences 5: 034.
37. Abatenh E, Gizaw B, Tsegaye Z (2018) Contamination in a Microbiological Laboratory. International Journal of Research 5(2): 28-35.
38. Rozsypal T (2023) Contaminated Disposable Rubber Gloves as Evidence Samples After a Chemical Attack with Nerve Agents. Drug Testing and Analysis 15(3): 701-703.
39. Loty B (2005) IAEA International Standards for Tissue Banks. Sterilisation of Tissues Using Ionising Radiations 4(1): 45-58.
40. Gall JAM, Court DS (2016) DNA Contamination–A Pragmatic Clinical View. Current Practice in Forensic Medicine 6(1): 90-110.
41. Waite C (2014) Forensic Exhibit Packaging: Paper or Plastic, the Potential for DNA Degradation. University of Huddersfield Repository 3(2): 45-59.
42. Ballou S, Stolorow M, Taylor M, Bamberger PS (2015) The Biological Evidence Handbook: Best Practices for Evidence Handlers. ResearchGate 6(1): 45-58.
43. Singh HN (2021) Collection, Preservation, and Transportation of Biological Evidence for Forensic DNA Analysis. International Journal of All Research Education and Scientific Methods 7(3): 215-230.
44. Kumar A, Kawatra R, Attri JR (2017) Standard Operating Protocol for Identification, Collection, Packaging, Storage, Transportation, and Reception of the Forensic Samples in the Laboratory. International Journal of Science and Research 4(1): 101-110.
45. Ezzell JW (2005) Forensic Handling of Biological Threat Samples in the Lab. Microbial Forensics 3(4): 25-40.
46. Muthini NJ (2018) Challenges Encountered by Scene of Crime Investigators: The Case of the Directorate of Criminal Investigations Headquarters, Nairobi. University of Nairobi Repository 5(2): 101-110.
47. Budowle B, Schutzer SE, Burans JP (2006) Quality Sample Collection, Handling, and Preservation for an Effective Microbial Forensics Program. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 72(8): 5634-5642.
48. Alketbi SK (2023) Analysis of Touch DNA. Doctoral thesis, University of Central Lancashire.
49. Alketbi SK (2018) The Affecting Factors of Touch DNA. Journal of Forensic Research 9: 424.
50. Alketbi SK (2023) The Role of DNA in Forensic Science: A Comprehensive Review. International Journal of Science and Research Archive 9(2): 814-829.
51. Alketbi SK (2024) A Journey into the Innovations and Expertise of Dubai Police and the General Department of Forensic Science and Criminology. World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews 22(2): 1391-1399.
52. Alketbi SK, Goodwin W (2019) Validating Touch DNA Collection Techniques Using Cotton Swabs. Journal of Forensic Research 10: 445.
53. Alketbi SK, Goodwin W (2019) The Effect of Surface Type, Collection, and Extraction Methods on Touch DNA. Forensic Science International: Genetics Supplement Series 7(1): 704-706.
54. Sankhla MS, Kumar R (2017) Identification of Criminal by Using Touch DNA: A New Tool for Investigation in Forensic Science. Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research 3(5): 61-67.
55. Alketbi SK (2020) Collection of Touch DNA from Rotten Banana Skin. International Journal of Forensic Sciences 5(4): 000204.
56. Alketbi SK, Goodwin W (2021) Touch DNA Collection Techniques for Non-Porous Surfaces Using Cotton and Nylon Swabs. Biomedical Journal of Scientific & Technical Research 36(3): 28608-28612.
57. Alketbi SK (2022) The Impact of Collection Method on Touch DNA Collected from Fabric. Journal of Forensic Sciences & Criminal Investigation 15(5): 555922.
58. Alketbi SK, Goodwin W (2022) The Impact of Area Size and Fabric Type on Touch DNA Collected from Fabric. Journal of Forensic Sciences & Criminal Investigation 16(1): 555926.
59. Burrill J (2021) The DNA in Touch DNA: Investigation of the Origins, Characteristics and Accumulation of Cellular and Cell-free Constituents of "Touch Deposits" in a Forensic Context. King's College London Repository.
60. Alketbi SK (2022) An Innovative Solution to Collect Touch DNA for Direct Amplification. Journal of Forensic Sciences & Criminal Investigation 16(1): 555928.
61. Alketbi SK, Alsoofi S (2022) Dual Recovery of DNA and Fingerprints Using Minitapes. Journal of Forensic Sciences & Criminal Investigation 16(1): 555929.
62. Alketbi SK, Goodwin W (2022) The Impact of Deposition Area and Time on Touch DNA Collected from Fabric. Forensic Science International: Genetics Supplement Series 8(1): 45-47.
63. Comte J, Baechler S, Gervaix J, Lock E (2019) Touch DNA Collection–Performance of Four Different Swabs. Forensic Science International: Genetics 38: 185-192.
64. Alketbi SK, Goodwin W (2023) Collection Methods for Touch DNA Direct Amplification. Journal of Forensic, Legal & Investigative Sciences 9: 072.
65. Alketbi SK (2023) An Evaluation of the Performance of Two Quantification Methods for Trace DNA Casework Samples. Journal of Forensic Sciences & Criminal Investigation 16(5): 555950.
66. Alketbi SK (2023) Collection Techniques of Touch DNA Deposited on Human Skin Following a Strangulation Scenario. International Journal of Legal Medicine 137: 1347-1352.
67. Alketbi SK, Goodwin W (2024) Evaluation of microFLOQ™ Direct Swab for Touch DNA Recovery. Forensic, Legal & Investigative Sciences 10: 093.
68. Sessa F, Pomara C, Esposito M, Grassi P, Cocimano G (2023) Indirect DNA Transfer and Forensic Implications: A Literature Review. Genes 14(12): 2153.
69. Heija S (2016) Quality Factors in a Molecular Genetics Laboratory. Theseus Repository.
70. Gaur A, Reddy A (2017) DNA Techniques in Wildlife Forensics (Animals): Standard Operating Procedures (SOP). CSIR Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology.
71. Buś MM, Allen M (2014) Collecting and Preserving Biological Samples from Challenging Environments for DNA Analysis. Biopreservation and Biobanking 12(3): 237-244.
72. Weyrich LS, Farrer AG, Eisenhofer R (2019) Laboratory Contamination Over Time During Low‐Biomass Sample Analysis. Molecular Ecology Resources 19(4): 951-960.
73. Thompson WC (1996) DNA Evidence in the O.J. Simpson Trial. University of Colorado Law Review 67(4): 1091-1151.
74. Chang M (2018) The US and Italian Criminal Justice System: Through the Lens of the Amanda Knox Trial. SSRN 6(2): 145-159.
75. Beeman BSA, Champion C, Daisy EJ, Gamo HN (2010) Financial Disclosure. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 12(3): 87-102.
76. Bowen RT (2010) Good Examples of Bad Behavior. Ethics and the Practice of Forensic Science 12(1): 35-45.
77. Bechky BA (2021) Blood, Powder, and Residue: How Crime Labs Translate Evidence into Proof. Google Books 8(4): 231-240.
78. Ewalt J, Jillson KC, Laguerre S (2007) DNA Fingerprinting. Worcester Polytechnic Institute.
79. McCormick C, White JL (2011) DNA Fingerprinting. Worcester Polytechnic Institute.
80. Casey S (2007) DNA Fingerprinting and Society. Core ac uk.
81. Bell L (2015) The Social Construction of Wrongful Conviction in Canadian News Coverage. University of Guelph Repository 5(3): 87-102.
82. Aronson JD (2008) Post-Conviction DNA Testing and the Emergence of a Fundamental Constitutional Right. SSRN 8(3): 211-230.
83. Volk M (2024) A Safer Future: Leveraging the AI Power to Improve Cybersecurity in Critical Infrastructures. Ev.FI University of Ljubljana 3(1): 45-56.
84. Carrão MCC (2022) Artificial Intelligence in Criminal Proceedings: The Admissibility of AI-Generated Evidence. RUN Digital Repository 2(4): 145-160.
85. Ivascu LN, Jahankhani H (2021) An Investigation into Counter Drones Digital Forensics Aided by Remote Technologies. Space Governance: Challenges. Threats and Solutions, pp. 195-208.
86. Mahmood H, Arshad M, Ahmed I, Fatima S (2024) Comparative Study of IoT Forensic Frameworks. Forensic Science International 4(2): 301-315.
87. Catoggio D, Pearman C (2018) Australasian Forensic Science Summit 2016: Business Models Towards 2030. Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences 50(2): 138-150.
88. Simola J (2022) Effects and Factors of the Hybrid Emergency Response Model in Public Protection and Disaster Relief. JYU Dissertations 4(1): 98-115.
89. Tuli EA, Lee JM, Kim DS (2024) Integration of Quantum Technologies into Metaverse: Applications, Potentials, and Challenges. IEEE Access 12(5): 215-230.
90. Addo A, Centhala S, Shanmugam M (2020) Artificial Intelligence for Security. Google Books 2(1): 23-45.
91. Ebers M, Navas S (2020) Algorithms and Law. Google Books 3(4): 155-175.
92. Moustafa N (2022) Digital Forensics in the Era of Artificial Intelligence. Taylor & Francis 4(3): 245-262.
93. Dash HR, Vajpayee K (2020) Collection, Preservation, and Transportation of Biological Evidence. Handbook of DNA Profiling, Springer 8(1): 65-85.
94. Keswani U (2023) Covert and Improvised Sampling of DNA Using Unconventional Sampling Tools for Deployed Operatives. Murdoch University Research Portal.