How far have we come with trace DNA since 2004? the Australian and New Zealand experience

DSpace/Manakin Repository

Search OPUS


Advanced Search

Browse

My Account

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Raymond, J
dc.contributor.author Van Oorschot, RAH
dc.contributor.author Walsh, SJ
dc.contributor.author Gunn, PR
dc.contributor.author Roux, CP
dc.date.accessioned 2012-10-12T03:33:02Z
dc.date.issued 2011-12-01
dc.identifier.citation Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 2011, 43 (4), pp. 231 - 244
dc.identifier.issn 0045-0618
dc.identifier.other C1 en_US
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/10453/18011
dc.description.abstract In 2004, a survey was sent to forensic organisations in every jurisdiction in Australia and New Zealand, benchmarking practices in relation to trace DNA analysis. Concerning issues were identified such as a lack of standard training protocols, little ongoing training or proficiency testing, and poor information gathering and sharing. To assess the changes occurring in the five years since this survey, a follow-up was devised and distributed to the same organisations in early 2009. Seventy-seven surveys were received from persons active in the field of trace DNA including crime scene and laboratory personnel, and managers. The major difference noted between the two surveys was the implementation of new technologies, primarily robotic automation and subsequent changes in extraction methodology. Disappointingly, training, research and proficiency test levels were still found to be lacking, a concern given the findings of recent international forensic reviews. A major deficiency still noted from the 2004 survey was the absence of effective data management systems, indicating that the wider intelligence-led application of this evidence is not fully utilised. Reviewing the methods and processes of the dissemination of forensic data in the policing environment has the potential to broaden its application to crime prevention strategies. © 2011 Copyright Taylor and Francis Group, LLC.
dc.language eng
dc.relation.isbasedon 10.1080/00450618.2010.484815
dc.title How far have we come with trace DNA since 2004? the Australian and New Zealand experience
dc.type Journal Article
dc.parent Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences
dc.journal.volume 4
dc.journal.volume 43
dc.journal.number 4 en_US
dc.publocation Clovelly NSW, Australia en_US
dc.identifier.startpage 231 en_US
dc.identifier.endpage 244 en_US
dc.cauo.name SCI.Chemistry and Forensic Sciences en_US
dc.conference Verified OK en_US
dc.for 0399 Other Chemical Sciences
dc.personcode 02103822
dc.personcode 960382
dc.personcode 044538
dc.percentage 100 en_US
dc.classification.name Other Chemical Sciences en_US
dc.classification.type FOR-08 en_US
dc.edition en_US
dc.custom en_US
dc.date.activity en_US
dc.location.activity en_US
dc.description.keywords forensic management
dc.description.keywords forensic training
dc.description.keywords methods
dc.description.keywords survey
dc.description.keywords trace DNA
pubs.embargo.period Not known
pubs.organisational-group /University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group /University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Science
pubs.organisational-group /University of Technology Sydney/Strength - Forensic Science
utslib.copyright.status Closed Access
utslib.copyright.date 2015-04-15 12:17:09.805752+10
pubs.consider-herdc true
utslib.collection.history Closed (ID: 3)
utslib.collection.history School of Medical and Molecular Sciences (ID: 341)


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record