1.
Guide to Coroner Services [Internet]. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/363879/guide-to-coroner-service.pdf
2.
College of Policing: Managing Investigations [Internet]. Available from: https://www.app.college.police.uk/app-content/investigations/managing-investigations/
3.
Forensic Science Regulator Annual Report 2015 [Internet]. Available from: 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 [Internet]. Available from: 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 [Internet]. Forensic Science Regulator; Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/393866/206_FSR_SOC_contamination_consultation.pdf
6.
Processing a Crime Scene [Internet]. 25AD. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur1GxXZGnNI
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. 2012 Jun;54(3):413–24.
8.
van den Eeden CAJ, de Poot CJ, van Koppen PJ. Forensic expectations: Investigating a crime scene with prior information. Science & Justice. 2016 Dec;56(6):475–81.
9.
Forensic Science Regulator Guidance: Cognitive Bias Effects Relevant to Forensic Science Examinations [Internet]. Available from: 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 RAH. Beware; gloves and equipment used during the examination of exhibits are potential vectors for transfer of DNA-containing material. International Congress Series. 2006 Apr;1288:556–8.
11.
Proff C, Schmitt C, Schneider PM, Foerster G, Rothschild MA. Experiments on the DNA contamination risk via latent fingerprint brushes. International Congress Series. 2006 Apr;1288:601–3.
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 [Internet]. 2005;50:1417–22. Available from: https://compass.astm.org/DIGITAL_LIBRARY/JOURNALS/JFS/PAGES/JFS2004430.htm
13.
O’Sullivan S, Geddes T, Lovelock TJ. The migration of fragments of glass from the pockets to the surfaces of clothing. Forensic Science International. 2011 May;208(1–3):149–55.
14.
Morgan RM, French JC, O’Donnell L, Bull PA. The reincorporation and redistribution of trace geoforensic particulates on clothing: An introductory study. Science & Justice. 2010 Dec;50(4):195–9.
15.
Goray M, van Oorschot RAH, Mitchell JR. DNA transfer within forensic exhibit packaging: Potential for DNA loss and relocation. Forensic Science International: Genetics. 2012 Mar;6(2):158–66.
16.
ENFSI Scenes of Crime Examination Best Practice Manual [Internet]. Available from: http://library.college.police.uk/docs/appref/ENFSI-BPM-v1_0.pdf
17.
Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) [Internet]. Available from: 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 [Internet]. 2003;117(3):170–4. Available from: https://link.springer.com/article/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. 2015 Dec;5:e527–9.
20.
Harbison S, Fleming R. Forensic body fluid identification: state of the art. Research and Reports in Forensic Medical Science. 2016 Feb;
21.
Kanokwongnuwut P, Kirkbride KP, Linacre A. Detection of latent DNA. Forensic Science International: Genetics. 2018 Nov;37:95–101.
22.
Tobias SHA, Jacques GS, Morgan RM, Meakin GE. The effect of pressure on DNA deposition by touch. Forensic Science International: Genetics Supplement Series. 2017 Dec;6:e12–4.
23.
Brayley-Morris H, Sorrell A, Revoir AP, Meakin GE, Court DS, Morgan RM. Persistence of DNA from laundered semen stains: Implications for child sex trafficking cases. Forensic Science International: Genetics. 2015 Nov;19:165–71.
24.
Wood I, Park S, Tooke J, Smith O, Morgan RM, Meakin GE. Efficiencies of recovery and extraction of trace DNA from non-porous surfaces. Forensic Science International: Genetics Supplement Series. 2017 Dec;6:e153–5.
25.
Pang BCM, Cheung BKK. Double swab technique for collecting touched evidence. Legal Medicine. 2007 Jul;9(4):181–4.
26.
Dror IE, Charlton D, Péron AE. Contextual information renders experts vulnerable to making erroneous identifications. Forensic Science International. 2006 Jan;156(1):74–8.
27.
Criminal Procedure Rules-2015-part-19.pdf [Internet]. Available from: 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 [Internet]. 2018. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54
29.
Why is evidence continuity and integrity so important? R v Sean Hoey, 2007 [Internet]. Available from: http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/nie/cases/NICC/2007/49.html&query=sean+and+hoey&method=boolean