Who touched the document?: A new overall strategy for collection and identification of DNA from the questioned documents as a supportive evidence

The questions on which judges/prosecutors apply for expertise are mostly about by whom a document was drafted/signed. In this study, a new collective strategy was constructed including a collection method, a modified‐silica‐based DNA isolation method, and a novel purification method on four contact...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Electrophoresis 2022-02, Vol.43 (3), p.425-436
Main Authors: Cavus Yonar, Fatma, Rayimoglu, Gulten, Anilanmert, Beril, Yukseloglu, Emel Hulya, Cengiz, Salih
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Contact pressure
DNA - analysis
DNA Fingerprinting
DNA profiling and identification
Documents
Forensic genetics
Fraud
Humans
Low pressure
Microsatellite Repeats
Polymerase Chain Reaction
Questioned documents and paper
Short tandem repeat (STR) amplification
Silicon dioxide
Touch
Touch DNA from contact traces
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The questions on which judges/prosecutors apply for expertise are mostly about by whom a document was drafted/signed. In this study, a new collective strategy was constructed including a collection method, a modified‐silica‐based DNA isolation method, and a novel purification method on four contact traces formed on four different paper surface during writing, using PCR with AmpFlSTR®GlobalFiler™ STR kit (after experimental comparison between three different kits) and identification using CE. This collective analysis approach is more sensitive and superior to its equivalents on questioned documents in literature because quantifiable amounts of touch DNA and profiles with high loci percentages (100% on day 1, 72.72% after 1 week) were obtained up to 1 week even after the most challenging conditions of sample forming that a forensic scientist can meet; as washing hands just before drafting and using a very low pressure in a shorter time (simulating a simple contact real conditions while drafting), using no visualizing technique that damages the document. Using the strategy, four most commonly used paper types were compared, to see in which of them DNA could be recovered better. The success of this strategy was shown on the 1‐day to 10‐year‐old real samples from a diary and some archive documents from a law office (including the mix‐DNA and different ballpoint pens). Thus, it became possible to show if a person had touched the document, in high success rates up to 1 week as a secondary evidence, when primary evidences are insufficient for the detection of document fraud offenses. Who touched the document?: An new overall strategy for collection and identification of DNA from the questioned documents as a supportive evidence?
ISSN:0173-0835
1522-2683
DOI:10.1002/elps.202100192