Wikipedia

User:Zalula01/sandbox

< User:Zalula01

[edit to Improvements in Forensics section of Cold Case]

Improvements in forensics edit

With the advent of and improvements to DNA testing/DNA profiling and other forensics technology, many cold cases are being re-opened and prosecuted.[1] Police departments are opening cold case units whose job is to re-examine cold case files. DNA evidence helps in such cases but as in the case of fingerprints, it is of no value unless there is evidence on file to compare it to. However, to combat that issue, the FBI is switching from using the Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS) to using a newer technology called the Next Generation Identification (NGI). Other improvements in forensics lie in fields such as:

  • Digital Forensics one application of which is to recover hidden or deleted data.
  • Ballistics Analysis which involves the evaluation of ammunition and firearms to determine which weapon might have been used in a crime.
  • Forensic Anthropology which analyzes skeletal remains to determine their cause of death or any other relevant information.
  • Mobile Forensics and Social Media which, since their creation, have had increased involvement in any police case cold or not.
  • Forensic Psychology which can be used to analyze crime scenes and identify suspect profiles.
  • Facial Recognition which has been used to identify suspects based on their facial features.
  • Artificial Intelligence (AI) which is used in all of the above systems to help analyze data and information.


[edit to Deployed Systems section of Automated Fingerprint Identification]

Deployed systems edit

The United States Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS) holds the fingerprint sets collected in the United States, and is managed by the FBI. However, the IAFIS is being retired to make room for a more improved software called the Next Generation Identification (NGI) system. Many states also have their own AFISs. AFISs have capabilities such as latent searching, electronic image storage, and electronic exchange of fingerprints and responses.

Many other countries and entities — including Canada, the European Union, the United Kingdom, Bangladesh, India, Israel, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Argentina, Turkey, Morocco, Italy, Chile, Peru, Venezuela, Australia, Denmark, the International Criminal Police Organization, and various states, provinces, and local administrative regions — have their own systems, which are used for a variety of purposes, including criminal identification, applicant background checks, receipt of benefits, and receipt of credentials (such as passports). In Australia, the system is called the National Automated Fingerprint Identification System.[2]

European police agencies are now required by a European council act[3] to open their AFISs to each other to improve the war on terror and the investigation of cross-border crime. The act followed the Prüm treaty, an initiative between the countries Belgium, Germany, Spain, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Austria. While technically not being an AFIS itself, the Pruem treaty's decentral infrastructure allows AFIS queries on all European criminal AFISs within a reasonable time.



[edit to History section of Forensic DNA analysis]

History edit

The methods for producing a DNA profile were developed by Alec Jeffreys and his team in 1985. Jefferys discovered that an unknown sample of DNA such as blood, hair, saliva, or semen could be analyzed and a unique DNA pattern/profile could be developed. [1 Wickenheiser] A year after his discovery, Jefferys was asked to use his new found DNA analysis to convict a man that police believed was responsible for 2 rape murders. Jefferys proved that the man was innocent using DNA from the crime scene. [2 Panneerchelyam]

When DNA analysis was first discovered, a process called Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism (RFLP) was used to analyze DNA. However, RFLP was an inefficient process due to the fact that it used up large amounts of DNA which couldn't always be obtained from a crime scene. [3 Marks] Modern day technology has evolved beyond RFLP. A system called Short Tandem Repeat (STR) is the modern day equivalent of RFLP. Not only does STR use less of a sample to analyze DNA, but it also is a part of a larger process called Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR). PCR is a process that can be used to quickly reproduce up to a billion copies of a singular segment of DNA. [3 Marks]



[edit to Background section of DNA Profiling]

Background edit

 
Sir Alec Jeffreys, pioneer of DNA profiling. His discovery led to the conviction of Colin Pitchfork in 1988.[4]

Starting in the 1980s, scientific advances allowed the use of DNA as a material for the identification of an individual. The first patent covering the direct use of DNA variation for forensics (US5593832A[5][6]) was filed by Jeffrey Glassberg in 1983, based upon work he had done while at Rockefeller University in the United States in 1981.

British geneticist Sir Alec Jeffreys independently developed a process for DNA profiling in 1985 while working in the Department of Genetics at the University of Leicester. Jefferys' discovered that a DNA examiner could establish patterns in unknown DNA. These patterns were a part of inherited traits that could be used to advance the field of relationship analysis. These discoveries lead to the first use of DNA profiling in a criminal case. [7][8][9][10]

The process, developed by Jeffreys in conjunction with Peter Gill and Dave Werrett of the Forensic Science Service (FSS), was first used forensically in the solving of the murder of two teenagers who had been raped and murdered in Narborough, Leicestershire in 1983 and 1986. In the murder inquiry, led by Detective David Baker, the DNA contained within blood samples obtained voluntarily from around 5,000 local men who willingly assisted Leicestershire Constabulary with the investigation, resulted in the exoneration of Richard Buckland, an initial suspect who had confessed to one of the crimes, and the subsequent conviction of Colin Pitchfork on January 2, 1988. Pitchfork, a local bakery employee, had coerced his coworker Ian Kelly to stand in for him when providing a blood sample—Kelly then used a forged passport to impersonate Pitchfork. Another coworker reported the deception to the police. Pitchfork was arrested, and his blood was sent to Jeffrey's lab for processing and profile development. Pitchfork's profile matched that of DNA left by the murderer which confirmed Pitchfork's presence at both crime scenes; he pleaded guilty to both murders.[11]

 
Variations of VNTR allele lengths in 6 individuals.

Although 99.9% of human DNA sequences are the same in every person, enough of the DNA is different that it is possible to distinguish one individual from another, unless they are monozygotic (identical) twins.[12] DNA profiling uses repetitive sequences that are highly variable,[12] called variable number tandem repeats (VNTRs), in particular short tandem repeats (STRs), also known as microsatellites, and minisatellites. VNTR loci are similar between closely related individuals, but are so variable that unrelated individuals are unlikely to have the same VNTRs.

Before VNTRs and STRs, people like Jefferys used a process called Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism (RFLP). This process regularly used large portions of DNA to analyze the differences between two DNA samples. RFLP was among the first technologies used in DNA profiling and analysis. However, as technology has evolved, new technologies, like STR, emerged and took the place of older technology like RFLP.[13]


The admissibility of DNA evidence in courts was disputed in the United States in the 1980s and 1990s, but has since become more universally accepted due to improved techniques.[14]

  1. ^ Levenson, Eric (2019-03-17). "It started as a hobby. Now they're using DNA to help cops crack cold cases". CNN. Retrieved 2019-04-10.
  2. ^ Fingerprint Identification In Australia
  3. ^ Acts adopted under the EO treaty. Retrieved 2010-05-10.
  4. ^ "Eureka moment that led to the discovery of DNA fingerprinting". The Guardian. 24 May 2009. Archived from the original on 26 April 2021. Retrieved 11 December 2016.
  5. ^ "Espacenet - Bibliographic data". worldwide.espacenet.com. Retrieved 2022-08-22.
  6. ^ "US5593832.pdf" (PDF). docs.google.com. Retrieved 2022-08-22.
  7. ^ Wickenheiser, Ray A. (2019 Jul 12). "Forensic genealogy, bioethics and the Golden State Killer case". National Library of Medicine. Retrieved 2023 April 16. {{cite web}}: Check |archive-url= value (help); Check date values in: |access-date= and |date= (help)CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  8. ^ Tautz D (1989). "Hypervariability of simple sequences as a general source for polymorphic DNA markers". Nucleic Acids Research. 17 (16): 6463–6471. doi:10.1093/nar/17.16.6463. PMC 318341. PMID 2780284.
  9. ^ US 5766847, Jäckle, Herbert & Tautz, Diethard, "Process for analyzing length polymorphisms in DNA regions", published 1998-06-16, assigned to Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Forderung der Wissenschaften 
  10. ^ Jeffreys AJ (November 2013). "The man behind the DNA fingerprints: an interview with Professor Sir Alec Jeffreys". Investigative Genetics. 4 (1): 21. doi:10.1186/2041-2223-4-21. PMC 3831583. PMID 24245655.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  11. ^ Evans C (2007) [1998]. The Casebook of Forensic Detection: How Science Solved 100 of the World's Most Baffling Crimes (2nd ed.). New York: Berkeley Books. p. 86–89. ISBN 978-1440620539.
  12. ^ a b "Use of DNA in Identification". Accessexcellence.org. Archived from the original on 2008-04-26. Retrieved 2010-04-03.
  13. ^ Marks, Kathy (June 2009). "New DNA Technology for Cold Cases". Law & Order. 57 (6): 36–38, 40–41, 43 – via Criminal Justice (ProQuest).
  14. ^ Roth, Andrea (2020). "Chapter 13: Admissibility of DNA Evidence in Court" (PDF). University of California Berkeley School of Law. Retrieved 2023-03-25. The original forms of forensic DNA testing and interpretation used in the 1980s and early 1990s were subject to much criticism during the "DNA Wars," the history of which has been ably told by others (Kaye, 2010; Lynch et al., 2008; see chapter 1). But these earlier techniques have been replaced in forensic DNA analysis by PCR- based STR discrete- allele typing. Courts now universally accept as generally reliable both the PCR process for amplification of DNA and the STR- based system of identifying and comparing alleles (Kaye, 2010, pp. 190– 191).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Zalula01/sandbox&oldid=1151884734"