Forensic Science International: Genetics Supplement Series 6 (2017) e3–e5

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Forensic Science International: Genetics Supplement Series

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/fsigss

Hand activities during robberies—Relevance to consideration of DNA T

transfer and detection
⁎
C.J. Stellaa,b, R.J. Mitchellb, R.A.H. van Oorschota,b,
a
Office of the Chief Forensic Scientist, Victoria Police Forensic Services Department, Macleod, Victoria, Australia
b
School of Molecular Sciences, College of Science, health and Engineering, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Australia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: It is becoming increasingly relevant to address activity level issues relating to mechanisms explaining how DNA
Activity became located at the collection site. DNA transferred to and from a surface upon contact can be influenced by
Transfer the manner, frequency and relative timing of contact, plus substrate types and their histories. It is important to
DNA understand these factors during criminal activity. People touch many things during everyday activities, and in a
Hands
relatively short period of time, and this may influence how DNA of a postulated source is gained or lost. Here we
consider touch parameters (what, how, duration, frequency) of both hands during armed and unarmed rob-
beries. Data were generated from the video recording of > 50 events. During armed robberies, the dominant
hand made ∼5 touches/min and the non-dominant hand ∼12. The majority of touches by the dominant hand
was with personal items whereas the non-dominant hand mainly touched non-personal items. During unarmed
robberies, the dominant hand made ∼9 touches/min and the non-dominant hand ∼12. The majority of touches
for both hands was with non-personal items. These data increase our awareness of what an individual’s hand
touches during a crime and importantly how that may influence the likelihood of detecting a DNA profile
derived from a person of interest from items of interest. Such awareness can improve likelihood estimates of
proposed scenarios.

1. Introduction 2. Materials and methods

DNA can be transfered upon physical contact and various factors
can impact transfer and detectability [1–15]. Awareness of these fac-
tors, and their impacts, is beneficial when addressing questions on how
DNA from a particular source became present on a sampled item.
van Oorschot et al. [16] found that during everyday general activ-
ities (such as whilst office multi-tasking, sitting at a café, on public
transport, eating meals, cooking, being at home or in a park), people
perform ∼15 touches per minute with their dominant hand. These
touches were of both personal (including self) and non-personal objects.
To gain further insights into hand touches during, and just prior to,
an offence we analysed videos of a common offence for which DNA
samples are regularly collected: robbery (armed and unarmed), ex-
amining both dominant and non-dominant hands.
Whilst video footage of a criminal offence can assist an investiga-
tion, in many cases it is unavailable, so consideration of data from other
sources is needed when interpreting DNA profiles from an ‘activity
level’ perspective. This study provides a further resource.
47 videos taken by CCTV of robberies and attempted robberies (37
armed, 10 unarmed), were analysed for a range of factors; number of
touches, types of items touched and their substrates, duration of tou-
ches, which part of the hand touched, and type of contact (Table 1).
Videos were selected following general criteria: readily accessible;
duration of ∼20 to 100 s; visability of both hands and what was tou-
ched. The period immediately prior to the offence was considered se-
parately from the period during the offence. Seven of eight ‘priors’ had
associated ‘durings’ analysed.
The offences were recorded during 2006–16 (majority during
2015–16), worldwide (chiefly USA and UK). All were committed inside
stores (including: convenience, jewellery, pharmacy, fast-food). The
weapon used included in relative frequency order: handgun, machete,
knife, longarm firearm, other.
3. Results
Table 1 shows that during armed robberies, recorded for an average

⁎
Corresponding author at: Office of the Chief Forensic Scientist, Victoria Police Forensic Services Department, Macleod, Victoria, Australia.
E-mail address: roland.vanoorschot@police.vic.gov.au (R.A.H. van Oorschot).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigss.2017.09.002
Received 23 August 2017; Accepted 2 September 2017
Available online 04 September 2017
1875-1768/ © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
C.J. Stella et al. Forensic Science International: Genetics Supplement Series 6 (2017) e3–e5

Table 1
Summary of touches of personala and non-personal objects immediately prior and during armed and non-armed robberies by dominant and non-dominant handsb.

Activity – Hand Obs (n) Mean duration/ Obs Touches (n) Objects Duration
Robbery (s) (std)
Mean/obs Pers:non-pers Mean/obs Pers:non-pers Prop time touching Pers:non-pers obj
(std) obj (%) (std) obj (%) obj/obs (std) (%)

Armed – prior Dominant 5 65.6 (51.2) 6.2 (5.8) 84: 16 3.6 (1.7) 72: 28 0.70 (0.29) 91: 9
Non-dominant 5 65.6 (51.2) 5.6 (5.5) 79: 21 2.8 (1.9) 79: 21 0.81 (0.23) 90: 10
Armed – during Dominant 37 35.8 (26.8) 3.2 (2.6) 62: 38 2.4 (1.7) 60: 40 0.93 (0.14) 91: 9
Non-dominant 37 35.8 (26.8) 7.0 (5.4) 37: 63 3.4 (1.8) 37: 63 0.59 (0.31) 50: 50
Unarmed – prior Dominant 3 26 (1.7) 6.7 (4.0) 80: 20 2.3 (1.5) 71: 29 0.61 (0.43) 96: 4
Non-dominant 3 26 (1.7) 6.7 (2.1) 85: 15 3.0 (1.7) 67: 33 0.61 (0.31) 96: 4
Unarmed – Dominant 10 40.4 (28.2) 6.1 (3.7) 29: 71 4.5 (2.9) 18: 82 0.70 (0.28) 70: 30
during
Non-dominant 10 40.4 (28.2) 8.1 (5.5) 22: 78 4.3 (2.7) 16: 84 0.58 (0.27) 35: 65

a
Inclusive of self, assumed personal objects.
b
Data also collected regarding: part of hand making contact, types of contact and substrate of objects touched. Results are summarised within text.

of 36 s, the dominant hand made an average of 3.2 touches and the non-
dominant hand 7.0 (extrapolating to ∼5 and ∼12 per min, respec-
tively). The majority of touches by the dominant hand were with per-
sonal objects whereas the non-dominant hand mainly touched non-
personal. During unarmed robberies, recorded for an average of 40 s,
the dominant hand made an average of 6.1 touches and the non-
dominant hand 8.1 (extrapolating to ∼9 and ∼12 per min, respec-
tively). The majority of touches for both hands was with non-personal
objects.
In armed robberies fewer touches were made by the dominant hand
‘during’, than ‘prior’. This difference was not evident with unarmed
robberies (Table 1). The average number of objects touched during the
observed period, when extrapolated to a standard duration of 1 min,
was 3–7 objects with the fewest touched prior to armed robberies
(Table 1). Hands were in contact with an object > 50% of the time
during each activity by either hand, with the dominant hand during
armed robberies contacting an object for the longest period (93%)
(Table 1). The durations of touches were longest with personal rather
than non-personal objects, except for the non-dominant hand during
armed and un-armed robberies (Table 1).
For each activity type and hand use, the majority of touches
(43–63%) involved the whole hand (palm plus fingers) rather than just
the palm, most of the fingers or fingertips, except for prior to unarmed
robbery where touches with just fingertips were equally frequent
(38%). Also, for each activity and hand, the majority of contacts
(67–91%) was deemed ‘pressure’ contact rather than ‘friction’ or ‘pas-
sive’ contact.
The substrate of the majority of personal objects touched was fabric
(mainly own cloths or bag) (52–94%) for all activity types and hands,
except for the dominant hand during armed robberies where the most
touched substrate of personal objects was ‘hard’ (35%) (mainly weapon
areas made of metal or hard plastic). The substrate of the majority of
non-personal objects touched were ‘hard’ (e.g. counter, register, stolen
goods) for all activities and hands, except for the dominant and non-
dominat hands during unarmed robberies where the majority (57–58%)
were of wood/paper (e.g. cash, counter, paperbags), and the dominant
hand prior to armed robbery, where substrates other than those defined
as hard, fabric, skin/hair, or wood/paper (e.g. rubber, thin plastic bags)
were as frequently touched (40%) as hard substrates.
During armed robberies the weapon was only, or mainly, held in the
dominant hand in all situations, regardless of weapon type, except in
one situation involving a longarm weapon.
4. Discussion
The approximate number of touches per minute by the dominant
hand during the assessed activities (∼5/min during armed robberies
and ∼9/min during unarmed robberies) were lower than those
observed during general activities (∼15) [16]. The approximate
number of touches by the non-dominant hand (∼12/min) was higher
than the dominant hand during these activities, and close to the number
of times observed during general activities by the dominant hand. The
proportions of non-personal objects touched by either hand during
unarmed robberies, and the non-dominant hand during armed rob-
beries, were higher than for other activity-hand situations within this
study and the majority of general activities reported previously [16].
Whilst we recognise that the present data set is limited, and the
offence type and location analysed narrow, this study points to the need
to consider general behaviours relating to an offence when determining
the probability of the presence of a particular profile and/or profile
mixture configuration, when addressing activity level related questions.
Further research of physical behaviours would be beneficial.
Whilst not the focus of this study, observations of human behaviours
could also assist with determining the most useful item(s), or area(s) of
an item, from which to collect a DNA sample, given a particular si-
tuation.
5. Conclusion
Many things are touched by hands within a short timeframe. As
each touch may influence the loss and gain of DNA from and to hands
and objects touched, it is important to gain insight into actions of hands
when interpreting crime related DNA profiles from an activity level
perspective.
Conflict of interest
None.
References
[1] R.A.H. van Oorschot, M.K. Jones, DNA fingerprinting from fingerprints, Nature 387
(1997) 767.
[2] M. Goray, E. Eken, R.J. Mitchell, et al., Secondary DNA transfer of biological sub-
stances under varying test conditions, Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 4 (2010) 62–67.
[3] M. Goray, R.J. Mitchell, R.A.H. van Oorschot, Investigation of secondary DNA
transfer of skin cells under controlled test conditions, Legal Med. 12 (2010)
117–120.
[4] T.J. Verdon, R.J. Mitchell, R.A.H. van Oorschot, The influence of substrate on DNA
transfer and extraction efficiency, Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 7 (2013) 167–175.
[5] R.A.H. van Oorschot, R. McArdle, W.H. Goodwin, et al., DNA transfer: the role of
temperature and drying time, Legal Med. 16 (2014) 161–163.
[6] B. Szkuta, M.L. Harvey, K.N. Ballantyne, et al., DNA transfer by examination tools
–a risk for forensic casework? Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 16 (2015) 246–254.
[7] M. van den Berge, B. Bhoelai, J. Harteveld, et al., Advancing forensic RNA typing:
on non-target secretions a nasal mucosa marker, a differential co-extraction pro-
tocol and the sensitivity of DNA and RNA profiling, Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 20
(2016) 119–129.
[8] R.A.H. van Oorschot, G. Glavich, R.J. Mitchell, Persistence of DNA deposited by the
original user on objects after subsequent use by a second person, Forensic Sci. Int.

e4
C.J. Stella et al.
Genet. 8 (2014) 219–225.
[9] M. Goray, S. Fowler, B. Szkuta, et al., Shedder status –an analysis of self and non-
self DNA in multiple handprints deposited by the same individual over time,
Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 23 (2016) 190–196.
[10] V.J. Lehmann, R.J. Mitchell, K.N. Ballantyne, et al., Following the transfer of DNA:
how does the presence of background DNA affect the transfer and detection of a
target source of DNA? Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 19 (2015) 68–75.
[11] G.E. Meakin, E.M. Butcher, R.A.H. van Oorschot, et al., Trace DNA evidence dy-
namics: an investigation into the deposition and persistence of directly- and in-
directly-transferred DNA on regularly-used knives, Forensic Sci. Int.: Genet. 29
(2017) 38–47.
[12] A.K. Buckingham, M. Harvey, R.A.H. van Oorschot, The origin of unknown source
e5
Forensic Science International: Genetics Supplement Series 6 (2017) e3–e5
DNA from touched objects, Forensic Sc. Int.: Genet. 25 (2016) 26–33.
[13] B. Szkuta, K.N. Ballantyne, R.A.H. van Oorschot, Transfer and persistence of DNA
on the hands and the influence of activities performed, Forensic Sci. Int.: Genet. 28
(2017) 10–20.
[14] M. Goray, R.A.H. van Oorschot, The complexities of DNA transfer during a social
setting, Legal Med. 17 (2015) 82–91.
[15] F. Oldoni, V. Castella, D. Hall, Shedding light on the relative DNA contribution of
two persons handling the same object, Forensic Sci. Int.: Genet. 24 (2016) 148–157.
[16] R.A.H. van Oorschot, D.L. McColl, J.E. Alderton, et al., Activities between activities
of focus –relevant when assessing DNA transfer probabilities, Forensic Sci. Int.:
Genet. Suppl. Ser. 5 (2015) e75–e77.