The effect of DNA recovery on the subsequent quality of latent fingermarks.

The recovery of DNA and fingermark evidence from the same site can be problematic on account of potential contamination from fingermark visualisation techniques, and/or the destructive capability of the DNA recovery method. Forensic investigators are therefore often required to choose which evidence type to recover, or to recover both evidence types from different sites. Research typically documents the effects of fingermark visualisation techniques on the subsequent recovery of DNA, whereas this research has investigated the effects of DNA recovery on the quality of subsequently recovered latent fingermarks. Eccrine rich, sebaceous rich, and 'normal' latent fingermarks were deposited onto five substrates: glass; aluminium; textured plastic; varnished wood; photocopier paper and aged from 4h to 4 weeks. Approximately half of the control fingermarks were developed without DNA recovery on all substrates. The remaining samples were subjected to one of five DNA recovery methods prior to fingermark development. Pre and post DNA recovered fingermarks were graded for quality, and AFIS correlations scores were obtained and analysed for statistically significant differences using Wilcoxon Signed Rank tests and Friedman tests. All of the DNA recovery methods reduced the quality of latent fingermarks on glass surfaces. Flocked swabs and gel lifts were the least destructive DNA recovery methods on the remaining surfaces, except for aluminium sheet metal. The quality of latent fingermarks deposited onto glossed wood and textured plastic and paper were less affected by dry swabbing. Wet swabbing and tape lifting were very damaging methods of DNA recovery.