ENFSI 2022 multidisciplinary collaborative exercise: organisation and outcomes

Q1 Social Sciences
F. Zampa , H. Bandey , A. Bécue , E. Bouzaid , M.J. Branco , J. Buegler , M. Kambosos , S. Kneppers , K. Kriiska-Maiväli , A. Mattei , L. Zatkalikova
{"title":"ENFSI 2022 multidisciplinary collaborative exercise: organisation and outcomes","authors":"F. Zampa ,&nbsp;H. Bandey ,&nbsp;A. Bécue ,&nbsp;E. Bouzaid ,&nbsp;M.J. Branco ,&nbsp;J. Buegler ,&nbsp;M. Kambosos ,&nbsp;S. Kneppers ,&nbsp;K. Kriiska-Maiväli ,&nbsp;A. Mattei ,&nbsp;L. Zatkalikova","doi":"10.1016/j.fsisyn.2024.100465","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The use of collaborative exercises (CE) and proficiency tests (PT) as part of the governance programme for any forensic science laboratory has become commonplace and recommended by several international organisations. Traditionally these have been discipline-specific exercises testing a laboratory's ability in a single area of forensic science. However, the “real” world is normally more complex and, in many instances, forensic material must be examined for a number of different evidence types.</p><p>This article summarises the concepts, planning, design, preparation, implementation, co-ordination and evaluation of the 2022 Multidisciplinary Collaborative Exercise (2022-MdCE) covering a range of forensic disciplines, specifically DNA, fingerprint, documents and handwriting.</p><p>The exercise consisted of a questioned letter with typescript text and a signature. In addition, the letter contained a visible bloody fingermark in the area of the signature, a visible staining in the lower left-hand corner, a latent fingermark and an indented impression.</p><p>The analysis of the results showed that, in the investigation of the bloody fingermark, the priority was given to the DNA examination. Some critical issues emerged in relation to the biological (DNA)/ink sampling strategies when applied before fingermark visualisation. Another outcome of the exercise has been to demonstrate the importance of indented impressions, which have been underestimated by a significant number of participants. As setters, more in-depth studies are needed to produce consistent samples. This concerns all the disciplined involved but especially DNA and fingermarks.</p><p>Based on this exercise, it is believed that this approach to testing of forensic disciplines allows the analysis of good practice within the various scientific areas, as well as scrutinising the process and sequence of events for examining the material within a forensic laboratory in the best conservative way for all kind of evidences.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":36925,"journal":{"name":"Forensic Science International: Synergy","volume":"8 ","pages":"Article 100465"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589871X24000123/pdfft?md5=a5a4a50135925eb3330e40a172ac2925&pid=1-s2.0-S2589871X24000123-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Forensic Science International: Synergy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589871X24000123","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The use of collaborative exercises (CE) and proficiency tests (PT) as part of the governance programme for any forensic science laboratory has become commonplace and recommended by several international organisations. Traditionally these have been discipline-specific exercises testing a laboratory's ability in a single area of forensic science. However, the “real” world is normally more complex and, in many instances, forensic material must be examined for a number of different evidence types.

This article summarises the concepts, planning, design, preparation, implementation, co-ordination and evaluation of the 2022 Multidisciplinary Collaborative Exercise (2022-MdCE) covering a range of forensic disciplines, specifically DNA, fingerprint, documents and handwriting.

The exercise consisted of a questioned letter with typescript text and a signature. In addition, the letter contained a visible bloody fingermark in the area of the signature, a visible staining in the lower left-hand corner, a latent fingermark and an indented impression.

The analysis of the results showed that, in the investigation of the bloody fingermark, the priority was given to the DNA examination. Some critical issues emerged in relation to the biological (DNA)/ink sampling strategies when applied before fingermark visualisation. Another outcome of the exercise has been to demonstrate the importance of indented impressions, which have been underestimated by a significant number of participants. As setters, more in-depth studies are needed to produce consistent samples. This concerns all the disciplined involved but especially DNA and fingermarks.

Based on this exercise, it is believed that this approach to testing of forensic disciplines allows the analysis of good practice within the various scientific areas, as well as scrutinising the process and sequence of events for examining the material within a forensic laboratory in the best conservative way for all kind of evidences.

ENFSI 2022 多学科合作活动:组织与成果
合作演练(CE)和能力考查(PT)作为任何法医学实验室管理计划的一部分已成为普遍现象,并为一些国际组织所推荐。传统上,这些都是针对特定学科的练习,测试实验室在法医学单一领域的能力。本文总结了 2022 年多学科协作演习(2022-MdCE)的概念、规划、设计、准备、实施、协调和评估,涵盖一系列法证学科,特别是 DNA、指纹、文件和笔迹。对结果的分析表明,在调查血指印时,DNA 检验被放在了优先地位。在指印可视化之前,生物(DNA)/墨迹取样策略出现了一些关键问题。这项工作的另一个成果是证明了压痕的重要性,很多参与者都低估了这一点。作为测绘人员,需要进行更深入的研究,以获得一致的样本。我们相信,基于这次演习,这种法医学科测试方法可以分析各个科学领域的良好做法,并仔细研究在法医实验室内以最保守的方式对各种证据的材料进行检查的过程和顺序。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
75
审稿时长
90 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信