1.
Guide to Coroner Services, https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/363879/guide-to-coroner-service.pdf.
2.
College of Policing: Managing Investigations, https://www.app.college.police.uk/app-content/investigations/managing-investigations/.
3.
Forensic Science Regulator Annual Report 2015, https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/482248/2015_FSR_Annual_Report_v1_0_final.pdf.
4.
Forensic Science Regulator Annual Report 2016, https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/581653/FSR_Annual_Report_v1.0.pdf.
5.
Forensic Science Regulator Guidance: The Control and Avoidance of Contamination In Crime Scene Examination involving DNA Evidence Recovery, https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/393866/206_FSR_SOC_contamination_consultation.pdf.
6.
Processing a Crime Scene, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur1GxXZGnNI, (25)AD.
7.
Baber, C., Butler, M.: Expertise in crime scene examination: Comparing search strategies of expert and novice crime scene examiners in simulated crime scenes. Human Factors. 54, 413–424 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720812440577.
8.
van den Eeden, C.A.J., de Poot, C.J., van Koppen, P.J.: Forensic expectations: Investigating a crime scene with prior information. Science & Justice. 56, 475–481 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2016.08.003.
9.
Forensic Science Regulator Guidance: Cognitive Bias Effects Relevant to Forensic Science Examinations, https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/510147/217_FSR-G-217_Cognitive_bias_appendix.pdf.
10.
Poy, A., van Oorschot, R.A.H.: Beware; gloves and equipment used during the examination of exhibits are potential vectors for transfer of DNA-containing material. International Congress Series. 1288, 556–558 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ics.2005.09.126.
11.
Proff, C., Schmitt, C., Schneider, P.M., Foerster, G., Rothschild, M.A.: Experiments on the DNA contamination risk via latent fingerprint brushes. International Congress Series. 1288, 601–603 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ics.2005.10.053.
12.
van Oorschot, R., Treadwell, S., Beaurepaire, J., Holding, N., Mitchell, R.: Beware of the Possibility of Fingerprinting Techniques Transferring DNA. Journal of Forensic Sciences. 50, 1417–1422 (2005).
13.
O’Sullivan, S., Geddes, T., Lovelock, T.J.: The migration of fragments of glass from the pockets to the surfaces of clothing. Forensic Science International. 208, 149–155 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2010.11.020.
14.
Morgan, R.M., French, J.C., O’Donnell, L., Bull, P.A.: The reincorporation and redistribution of trace geoforensic particulates on clothing: An introductory study. Science & Justice. 50, 195–199 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2010.04.002.
15.
Goray, M., van Oorschot, R.A.H., Mitchell, J.R.: DNA transfer within forensic exhibit packaging: Potential for DNA loss and relocation. Forensic Science International: Genetics. 6, 158–166 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2011.03.013.
16.
ENFSI Scenes of Crime Examination Best Practice Manual, http://library.college.police.uk/docs/appref/ENFSI-BPM-v1_0.pdf.
17.
Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KoLnIwoZKU&feature=youtu.be.
18.
G. N. Rutty: The effectiveness of protective clothing in the reduction of potential DNA contamination of the scene of crime. International Journal of Legal Medicine. 117, 170–174 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-002-0348-1.
19.
Margiotta, G., Tasselli, G., Tommolini, F., Lancia, M., Massetti, S., Carnevali, E.: Risk of DNA transfer by gloves in forensic casework. Forensic Science International: Genetics Supplement Series. 5, e527–e529 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigss.2015.09.208.
20.
Harbison, S., Fleming, R.: Forensic body fluid identification: state of the art. Research and Reports in Forensic Medical Science. (2016). https://doi.org/10.2147/RRFMS.S57994.
21.
Kanokwongnuwut, P., Kirkbride, K.P., Linacre, A.: Detection of latent DNA. Forensic Science International: Genetics. 37, 95–101 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2018.08.004.
22.
Tobias, S.H.A., Jacques, G.S., Morgan, R.M., Meakin, G.E.: The effect of pressure on DNA deposition by touch. Forensic Science International: Genetics Supplement Series. 6, e12–e14 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigss.2017.09.020.
23.
Brayley-Morris, H., Sorrell, A., Revoir, A.P., Meakin, G.E., Court, D.S., Morgan, R.M.: Persistence of DNA from laundered semen stains: Implications for child sex trafficking cases. Forensic Science International: Genetics. 19, 165–171 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2015.07.016.
24.
Wood, I., Park, S., Tooke, J., Smith, O., Morgan, R.M., Meakin, G.E.: Efficiencies of recovery and extraction of trace DNA from non-porous surfaces. Forensic Science International: Genetics Supplement Series. 6, e153–e155 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigss.2017.09.022.
25.
Pang, B.C.M., Cheung, B.K.K.: Double swab technique for collecting touched evidence. Legal Medicine. 9, 181–184 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.legalmed.2006.12.003.
26.
Dror, I.E., Charlton, D., Péron, A.E.: Contextual information renders experts vulnerable to making erroneous identifications. Forensic Science International. 156, 74–78 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2005.10.017.
27.
Criminal Procedure Rules-2015-part-19.pdf, http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/criminal/docs/2015/crim-proc-rules-2015-part-19.pdf.
28.
Channel 4 News: Jordan Peterson debate on the gender pay gap, campus protests and postmodernism - YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54, (2018).
29.
Why is evidence continuity and integrity so important? R v Sean Hoey, 2007, http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/nie/cases/NICC/2007/49.html&query=sean+and+hoey&method=boolean.
