Search

Available literature on the detection of transferred DNA does not address the interpretation issues in relation to who wore rather than touched the garment. To acquire a greater knowledge of the rate of detectable wearer, toucher and background DNA, 63 males wore their own underpants for 12h. The inside-waistband was handled by one of 11 female volunteers for 15s. The waist-band was mini-taped and subjected to DNA profiling with the AMPFlSTR(®) NGM SElect™ kit. The findings show that on worn garments the probability of observing reportable DNA profiles is 61.9%. The wearer was detected as a single profile or part of a mixed profile in 50.8% of samples. When the wearer was present in a mixture, he was always observed as the major contributor. The toucher was detected on 11.1% of underpants. Reportable background DNA (non-wearer and non-toucher) occurs in 14.3% of samples and may affect the assessment of who wore the garment. Greater knowledge of the frequency of detection of reportable wearer DNA and/or toucher allows scientists to evaluate the likelihood of observing a matching profile if an individual wore a garment rather than touched it in disputed case scenarios.

During an investigation, the question of interest might be whether or not a person has worn a given garment. Wearer DNA studies have contributed to our knowledge and understanding of DNA transfer and persistence on items of worn clothing. However, there is currently no extensive dataset on DNA profiling outcomes from a variety of upper garments. Therefore we investigated the DNA profiling outcomes from the collars and/or cuffs of forty-four upper garments of worn clothing and determined the quantity of wearer and non-wearer DNA recovered. Interpretable DNA profiles were more likely to be obtained from collars than cuffs (84% versus 71%). The wearer was detected in all interpretable profiles and a major profile corresponding to the wearer was the most common outcome from both collar and cuff samples (48% and 50%, respectively). There was large variation in the amount of wearer DNA recovered and the average recovered was approximately 20 ng. Usually more wearer DNA was found on collars than cuffs of the same garment and, on average, more non-wearer DNA was found on cuffs than collars. No DNA was recovered from the cuffs of two garments despite these garments being worn for three and four hours, respectively. On one occasion a non-wearer contributed more DNA to a cuff sample than the wearer. We found no correlation between wearing time and the amount of wearer DNA recovered which indicates that other factors (e.g. shedder status and/or the manner of contact between the garment and skin) have a greater influence, than wearing time, on the amount of DNA transferred. However, there was a positive correlation between wearing time and the likelihood of obtaining interpretable profiles. This work has generated data to support the evaluation of DNA evidence from clothing and we provide a case example to demonstrate this.

Saliva plus DNA from a suspect is commonly encountered in sexual assault cases on bodily swabs. However, without background knowledge, the weight of this evidence is unknown. It may indicate the presence of saliva resulting from cunnilingus, or it may represent indirect transfer. In this study, females who refrained from cunnilingus donated 43 items of underwear and 19 vaginal swabs. The samples were subjected to Phadebas(®) , RSID(™) -Saliva and mRNA profiling and were subsequently DNA-profiled to determine the prevalence of background saliva in the female population. The results report that 15.8% of females who refrained from cunnilingus were positive for saliva and a further 10.5% also had DNA from unknown source(s). These findings of the rate of indirect transfer were evaluated with the Bayesian approach, and it was found that the evidence of saliva plus a high foreign DNA source adds moderately strong support to the allegation of cunnilingus.