Forensic Science International: Synergy最新文献

{"title":"Public views of forensic science: An intersection of science and policing?","authors":"Naomi Kaplan-Damary,&nbsp;Tal Jonathan-Zamir,&nbsp;Gali Perry,&nbsp;Eran Itskovich","doi":"10.1016/j.fsisyn.2025.100640","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.fsisyn.2025.100640","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Consistent with the growing interest in public attitudes toward forensic science, the present study focuses on the potential antecedents of trust in forensics. Collecting and analyzing forensic evidence involves scientific methods, and thus trust in science as a whole may influence trust in forensics. At the same time, because the police are responsible for collecting and analyzing forensic evidence, public trust in the police may affect perceptions of forensic science. These hypothesized relationships align with theories of generalized trust, which suggest that individuals apply broad trust orientations across different authorities and social institutions. To test the role of these views as antecedents of trust in forensics, 1,342 Israelis were surveyed about their views of forensic science, the police, and science as a whole. A cluster analysis identified three groups of people: those expressing high levels of trust in all three institutions; those expressing low trust in all three; and those expressing high trust in science and forensics but low trust in the police. The clusters were associated with several socio-demographic characteristics. Moreover, correlations reveal that trust in forensics is associated with trust in science and, to a lesser extent, with trust in the police, and may be embedded within broader patterns of institutional trust.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":36925,"journal":{"name":"Forensic Science International: Synergy","volume":"11 ","pages":"Article 100640"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145157424","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Canadian correctional program officers facilitating programming for sex offenders: The stickiness of stigma","authors":"Rosemary Ricciardelli ,&nbsp;Dale Spencer ,&nbsp;Micheal P. Taylor","doi":"10.1016/j.fsisyn.2025.100639","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.fsisyn.2025.100639","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The stigma of being convicted (or suspected) of sex–related offenses is long recognized, resulting in people being viewed as being the most abhorrent of offenders. Sex offenders (SOs) have been studied, as well as the parole and correctional officers who work with them. Yet, despite their centralized role in prisoner rehabilitation, correctional program officers (CPOs) facilitating programs to SOs have yet to be examined in relation to their interpretations of SOs and of prison culture around SOs. Drawing on interviews with 12 CPOs who have delivered SO-focused programming to groups of SOs exclusively, we unpack the stigma and label of SOs in institutions and the community, the perceived implications of stigmatization on SO and CPOs, and on their ability to complete programs safely and successfully. Our findings reveal i) SOs remain stigmatized with repercussion for reintegration opportunities; ii) SOs remain at the bottom of the prisoner hierarchy; iii) SOs require support to physically attend programs; and iv) the SO stigma sticks to people facilitating sex offender programs. Findings are discussed in relation to stigma theories but also considerations for program delivery and CPO education and wellness are put forth.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":36925,"journal":{"name":"Forensic Science International: Synergy","volume":"11 ","pages":"Article 100639"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145026348","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Legislation for forensic investigative genetic genealogy in Sweden","authors":"Ricky Ansell ,&nbsp;Siri Aili Fagerholm","doi":"10.1016/j.fsisyn.2025.100637","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.fsisyn.2025.100637","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Sweden was in 2019 the first country outside of North America to use forensic investigative genetic genealogy (FIGG) in solving a crime. However, further use of the method was inhibited in 2021 by the Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection Authority (IMY), following a mandatory prior consultation process. This decision was due to a considered lack of legislative support as well as issues regarding the transfer of sensitive personal data to a third country. Subsequently, method implementation was put on hold awaiting necessary legal review and amendments. In July 2024, the Swedish Justice Department presented a legal bill on the Police Authority use of FIGG, with only slight changes in relation to the considerations presented by a previous national committee on law enforcement use of biometrics. The legislation distinctly passed parliament vote February 2025 and it will gain force on July 1, 2025. Due to its sensitive nature the use of FIGG will be limited to the most severe offences; murder and aggravated rape, as a last resort and only following a prerequisite of “absolute necessity”. This paper describes the coming legislation on the use of FIGG in Sweden, discussing some parts of the constitutional comments and limitations seen, and describing implementation of FIGG within Swedish law enforcement.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":36925,"journal":{"name":"Forensic Science International: Synergy","volume":"11 ","pages":"Article 100637"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145018843","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Challenges in using massively parallel sequencing technology for forensic DNA analysis in Southeast Asia","authors":"Christian S. Estrella ,&nbsp;Maylowen P. Lumayna ,&nbsp;Minerva D. Sagum,&nbsp;Maeviviene V. Sosing,&nbsp;Gayvelline C. Calacal,&nbsp;Maria Corazon A. De Ungria,&nbsp;Jazelyn M. Salvador","doi":"10.1016/j.fsisyn.2025.100638","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.fsisyn.2025.100638","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Massively parallel sequencing (MPS) has caused a paradigm shift in forensic DNA analysis by enabling simultaneous examination of multiple genetic markers with higher resolution. Despite its growing importance, adoption in the 11 Southeast Asian countries remains limited. This paper reviews MPS implementation in forensic DNA laboratories across the region and discusses key adoption challenges. An online survey with the Asian Forensic Sciences Network – DNA Workgroup (AFSN-DNAWG) received 19 responses from seven countries: Brunei Darussalam, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam. Eight respondents are using MPS, while 10 of 11 non-users plan to adopt it within five years. Key challenges for users included limited population data, lack of standardized international nomenclature, and incompatibility with existing national DNA databases, which rely on length polymorphisms of short tandem repeat (STR) markers. Non-users cited limited infrastructure, financial constraints due to lack of government support, and insufficient training in managing sequencing data. To expand MPS use, we recommend a strategy combining effective capillary electrophoresis (CE)-based DNA profiling for routine cases with MPS technology for complex cases; establishment of an MPS-capable forensic DNA laboratory per country; and increased regional collaboration to maximize genomic data use common to mainstream and Indigenous populations, which have histories of trade, migration, and cultural interactions. These steps can provide a practical approach to integrating MPS into forensic databasing and casework across Southeast Asia.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":36925,"journal":{"name":"Forensic Science International: Synergy","volume":"11 ","pages":"Article 100638"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-08-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144908184","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Legitimacy of investigative forensic genetic genealogy under Art. 8 ECHR","authors":"Oliver M. Tuazon,&nbsp;Bart Custers,&nbsp;Gerrit-Jan Zwenne","doi":"10.1016/j.fsisyn.2025.100636","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.fsisyn.2025.100636","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Investigative forensic genetic genealogy (iFGG) was successfully used in the United States to solve the Golden State Killer case in 2018 and in Sweden to solve the Linköping double-murder case in 2020. However, further use of iFGG in Sweden was temporarily suspended due to concerns about its legitimacy. This article evaluates the legitimacy of iFGG within what we name, the European Court of Human Rights' (ECtHR) four-fold privacy test: the preliminary interference test, the lawfulness test, the legitimate aim test, and the proportionality test. The use of iFGG is an interference with an individual's right to respect for private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Its lawfulness requires the creation of an iFGG-enabling law or amendment of an existing law to allow iFGG use by law enforcement. Its legitimate aim—criminal identification through data derived from DNA deposited at crime scenes—falls squarely under Article 8 § 2 ECHR. The proportionality of its use largely depends on the provision of appropriate safeguards in an iFGG-enabling law that would protect genetic data privacy. Although iFGG is a powerful tool to help solve cold cases, it has to stand on a solid legal ground that allows its use while respecting the right to privacy. It should be able to withstand any legal challenge before the ECtHR in the future. The safeguards identified in this article, if incorporated in an iFGG-enabling law, hope to prevent such legal challenge.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":36925,"journal":{"name":"Forensic Science International: Synergy","volume":"11 ","pages":"Article 100636"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-08-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144860493","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Recommendations for victim survivability assessment methodology based on the Manchester Arena Bombing Inquiry","authors":"Mark Ballard ,&nbsp;Anthony M.J. Bull ,&nbsp;Jonathan C. Clasper ,&nbsp;Alan E. Hepper ,&nbsp;Emrys Kirkman ,&nbsp;Peter F. Mahoney","doi":"10.1016/j.fsisyn.2025.100634","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.fsisyn.2025.100634","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>An expert panel was assembled to report on whether either earlier or different medical treatment could have allowed any of the 22 fatalities of the Manchester Arena Bomb to survive. The aim of this paper is to report on the methodology used by the panel, and to make recommendations for future forensic analyses of explosive events.</div><div>The panel comprised individuals with a broad range of expertise who received relevant materials from the Inquiry Solicitors. The methodology used was iterative and comprehensive with the panel meeting together at regular points to: sequentially review all the material; conduct detailed analyses on the material; review the outputs of the analyses; reconcile and address any inconsistencies or points of debate; strictly define the following terms: unsurvivable, unlikely to be survivable, and potentially survivable; and report to the Inquiry. A second level of iteration was overlayed on this due to: early reporting being requested by the Solicitors to the Inquiry prior to all information being provided; and the expert panel conclusions being contested by the family of one of the casualties and the medical experts appointed by their legal teams, resulting in further analyses being conducted by the panel. The following detailed analyses were conducted for each fatality: injury scoring; injury visualisation and mapping; forensic three-dimensional post-mortem CT scan analysis; ballistic injury analysis; blood loss analysis; tourniquet use; blast lung injury; and categorisation and survivability.</div><div>The panel concluded that 21 individuals suffered unsurvivable injuries and one suffered potentially survivable injuries. In order to complete their tasking, the panel found that: no one piece of evidence and expertise on its own was sufficient; post-mortem CT imaging to assess anatomical damage and body worn video to analyse physiological response were key; and lack of detailed information on survivors hindered the panel's work.</div><div>The clarity of outputs provided by the panel with only the conclusion regarding one of the fatalities being contested highlights the robustness of this panel approach. The following recommendations are made that, in addition to the information that was provided to the panel during this Inquiry, the following information be provided during any future forensic analyses of explosive events: the location of survivors, and uninjured; medical records of the survivors; the three-dimensional plans of the location; structural damage records; and building records and construction technique.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":36925,"journal":{"name":"Forensic Science International: Synergy","volume":"11 ","pages":"Article 100634"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-08-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144805822","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The invisible crisis facing forensic providers in the United States","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.fsisyn.2025.100631","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.fsisyn.2025.100631","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>There is a dissonance between the public perception of forensic practice in the United States and reality. Portrayed as infallible and universally available, the truth is that the awkward evolution of forensic practice has created fissures in its foundations, affecting both the quality and quantity of these critical services. These fissures have only widened over time, creating problems that require creative solutions.</div><div>Within the United States, every level of government provides forensic services, and there is no overarching authority over forensic providers. The recent reevaluation of the Chevron deference doctrine by the Supreme Court ensures that this is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. Under Chevron deference, courts would defer to regulatory agencies interpretations when laws were ambiguous. This new ruling transfers that responsibility back to the courts, making the creation of a new regulatory agency over forensic providers even less likely. Thus, any meaningful change to forensic practice must come from within the profession. As unlikely as this may seem, it has occurred before.</div><div>This perspective allows us to see the hidden challenges forensic providers face and propose potential solutions that practitioners can implement to increase the quality of their work and the resilience of the system they operate within. By evaluating how forensic practice has implemented change in the past, this paper proposes solutions that have worked before and expands on others from different industries with similar challenges.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":36925,"journal":{"name":"Forensic Science International: Synergy","volume":"11 ","pages":"Article 100631"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144779503","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Fast DNA reports for investigative leads in casework practice: An automated workflow for mixture analysis using database searching based on probabilistic genotyping","authors":"Corina C.G. Benschop,&nbsp;Martin Slagter,&nbsp;Laurens J.W. Grol,&nbsp;Pauline Hovers,&nbsp;Jord H.A. Nagel,&nbsp;Sophie Smit,&nbsp;Francisca E. Duijs,&nbsp;Alexander L.J. Kneppers","doi":"10.1016/j.fsisyn.2025.100632","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.fsisyn.2025.100632","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The Fast DNA Identification Line (Fast ID Line) is a series of software solutions automating the process of DNA profile analysis, contamination checks, comparison with reference profiles, elimination and criminal DNA database comparison, report generation and dissemination of results to law enforcement. The Fast ID Line v1.0 focussed on identifying candidates that could be contributors to single-source profiles or major contributors to mixed DNA profiles.</div><div>In this paper, the Fast ID Line was extended to automatically report on mixture profiles with up to four contributors. This software, v2.0, includes extended profile analysis rules, a machine learning model for number of contributors estimation and a probabilistic genotyping model for database searching. Suitability criteria were established for the automatically analysed DNA profiles and reporting of the results.</div><div>End-to-end testing using casework data demonstrated that the Fast ID Line v2.0: 1) delivered &gt;80 % of DNA reports within three working days, 2) retrieved 1.9-fold more candidates compared to v1.0 (304 vs 162/777 database searches), and 3) reported 72 % of candidates that were reported in the manual casework workflow.</div><div>Police and public prosecution across the Netherlands now make use of the Fast ID Line reports with investigative leads. The automated reports are quickly available, allowing law enforcement to act on DNA findings for intelligence purposes before receiving the expert report. Additional information was provided in only 33% of the expert reports. This indicates that, in the majority of cases, the Fast ID Line results only require a confirmation check by a DNA expert, saving valuable time.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":36925,"journal":{"name":"Forensic Science International: Synergy","volume":"11 ","pages":"Article 100632"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144779502","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Drone forensics redefined: Integrating live, digital, and non-digital evidence acquisition systems","authors":"Dongkyu Lee ,&nbsp;Wook Kang","doi":"10.1016/j.fsisyn.2025.100635","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.fsisyn.2025.100635","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The rapid development and proliferation of drone technology have led to an increase in various threats. In particular, the number of attacks, crimes, and accidents using drones is continuously expanding, and the need for a systematic response is growing. Existing response strategies have mainly focused on real-time defense-oriented technologies and policies, such as detection, identification, and neutralization of drones. However, recently, the importance of drone forensics, which identifies the flight path of drones, pilot information, and the cause of accidents after an incident, has been highlighted. Drone forensics combines elements of traditional digital forensics and non-digital (physical) forensics, and live forensics technology that collects and analyzes data immediately after an incident plays a crucial role. Drone forensics has distinct technical characteristics compared to general forensics, and this study presents a systematic analysis framework and analysis algorithm structure that reflects these technical characteristics and convergent analysis factors. It comprehensively reviews the major drone forensics technologies currently being utilized. This will help to secure the legal evidence capability of drone forensics and increase its usefulness as evidence.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":36925,"journal":{"name":"Forensic Science International: Synergy","volume":"11 ","pages":"Article 100635"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144779504","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The problem with eliminations: Why forensic comparisons need false negative rates","authors":"Maria Cuellar","doi":"10.1016/j.fsisyn.2025.100621","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.fsisyn.2025.100621","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>This article examines the overlooked risk of false negative errors arising from eliminations in forensic firearm comparisons. While recent reforms in forensic science have focused on reducing false positives, eliminations — often based on class characteristics or intuitive judgments — receive little empirical scrutiny despite their potential to exclude true sources. In cases involving a closed pool of suspects, eliminations can function as de facto identifications, introducing serious risk of error. A review of existing validity studies reveals that many report only false positive rates, failing to provide a complete assessment of method accuracy. This asymmetry is reinforced by professional guidelines, such as those from AFTE, and echoed in major government reports, including those from NAS and PCAST. The article argues that eliminations, like identifications, must be validated through rigorous testing and reported with transparent error rates. It further cautions against the use of “common sense” eliminations in the absence of empirical support and highlights the dangers of contextual bias when examiners are aware of investigative constraints. Five policy recommendations are proposed to improve the scientific treatment and legal interpretation of eliminations, including balanced reporting of false positive and false negative rates, validation of intuitive judgments, and clear warnings against using eliminations to infer guilt in closed-pool scenarios. Without reform, eliminations will continue to escape scrutiny, perpetuating unmeasured error and undermining the integrity of forensic conclusions.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":36925,"journal":{"name":"Forensic Science International: Synergy","volume":"11 ","pages":"Article 100621"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144749503","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}