[1]
Baber, C. and Butler, M. 2012. Expertise in crime scene examination: Comparing search strategies of expert and novice crime scene examiners in simulated crime scenes. Human Factors. 54, 3 (Jun. 2012), 413–424. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720812440577.
[2]
Brayley-Morris, H. et al. 2015. Persistence of DNA from laundered semen stains: Implications for child sex trafficking cases. Forensic Science International: Genetics. 19, (Nov. 2015), 165–171. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2015.07.016.
[3]
Channel 4 News 2018. Jordan Peterson debate on the gender pay gap, campus protests and postmodernism - YouTube.
[4]
College of Policing: Managing Investigations: https://www.app.college.police.uk/app-content/investigations/managing-investigations/.
[5]
Dror, I.E. et al. 2006. Contextual information renders experts vulnerable to making erroneous identifications. Forensic Science International. 156, 1 (Jan. 2006), 74–78. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2005.10.017.
[6]
van den Eeden, C.A.J. et al. 2016. Forensic expectations: Investigating a crime scene with prior information. Science & Justice. 56, 6 (Dec. 2016), 475–481. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2016.08.003.
[7]
G. N. Rutty 2003. The effectiveness of protective clothing in the reduction of potential DNA contamination of the scene of crime. International Journal of Legal Medicine. 117, 3 (2003), 170–174. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-002-0348-1.
[8]
Goray, M. et al. 2012. DNA transfer within forensic exhibit packaging: Potential for DNA loss and relocation. Forensic Science International: Genetics. 6, 2 (Mar. 2012), 158–166. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2011.03.013.
[9]
Harbison, S. and Fleming, R. 2016. Forensic body fluid identification: state of the art. Research and Reports in Forensic Medical Science. (Feb. 2016). DOI:https://doi.org/10.2147/RRFMS.S57994.
[10]
Kanokwongnuwut, P. et al. 2018. Detection of latent DNA. Forensic Science International: Genetics. 37, (Nov. 2018), 95–101. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2018.08.004.
[11]
Margiotta, G. et al. 2015. Risk of DNA transfer by gloves in forensic casework. Forensic Science International: Genetics Supplement Series. 5, (Dec. 2015), e527–e529. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigss.2015.09.208.
[12]
Morgan, R.M. et al. 2010. The reincorporation and redistribution of trace geoforensic particulates on clothing: An introductory study. Science & Justice. 50, 4 (Dec. 2010), 195–199. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2010.04.002.
[13]
van Oorschot, R. et al. 2005. Beware of the Possibility of Fingerprinting Techniques Transferring DNA. Journal of Forensic Sciences. 50, (2005), 1417–1422.
[14]
O’Sullivan, S. et al. 2011. The migration of fragments of glass from the pockets to the surfaces of clothing. Forensic Science International. 208, 1–3 (May 2011), 149–155. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2010.11.020.
[15]
Pang, B.C.M. and Cheung, B.K.K. 2007. Double swab technique for collecting touched evidence. Legal Medicine. 9, 4 (Jul. 2007), 181–184. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.legalmed.2006.12.003.
[16]
Poy, A. and van Oorschot, R.A.H. 2006. Beware; gloves and equipment used during the examination of exhibits are potential vectors for transfer of DNA-containing material. International Congress Series. 1288, (Apr. 2006), 556–558. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ics.2005.09.126.
[17]
Proff, C. et al. 2006. Experiments on the DNA contamination risk via latent fingerprint brushes. International Congress Series. 1288, (Apr. 2006), 601–603. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ics.2005.10.053.
[18]
Tobias, S.H.A. et al. 2017. The effect of pressure on DNA deposition by touch. Forensic Science International: Genetics Supplement Series. 6, (Dec. 2017), e12–e14. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigss.2017.09.020.
[19]
Wood, I. et al. 2017. Efficiencies of recovery and extraction of trace DNA from non-porous surfaces. Forensic Science International: Genetics Supplement Series. 6, (Dec. 2017), e153–e155. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigss.2017.09.022.
[20]
Criminal Procedure Rules-2015-part-19.pdf.
[21]
ENFSI Scenes of Crime Examination Best Practice Manual.
[22]
Forensic Science Regulator Annual Report 2015.
[23]
Forensic Science Regulator Annual Report 2016.
[24]
Forensic Science Regulator Guidance: Cognitive Bias Effects Relevant to Forensic Science Examinations.
[25]
Forensic Science Regulator Guidance: The Control and Avoidance of Contamination In Crime Scene Examination involving DNA Evidence Recovery. Forensic Science Regulator.
[26]
Guide to Coroner Services.
[27]
Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR).
[28]
25AD. Processing a Crime Scene.
[29]
Why is evidence continuity and integrity so important? R v Sean Hoey, 2007.