"Dynamic Criminology": New Theory to Evaluate Properly what Biological Evidences means in Forensic Field

The new theory of "dynamic criminology" was born because a thorough analysis by forensic judges and scientists showed critical points. In particular, in the forensic field, it is important that a DNA be evaluated as a "static element” because no information can give the genetic test about the trace deposition time and track deposition mode. This post is to be subjected to scientific verification. The "spatial distribution of tracks", "trace amounts" and "biological tissue from which the traces originate. By doing so, you can use single static evidence in a multi-integrated context, and by converging the scientific data, you can generate a reconstruction of the incident from the evaluation of the static elements in toto [1-5].

In order to provide the correct basis for the judge, scientific evidence should be treated with according to the most modern scientific protocols; In particular, genetic evidence must be analyzed only in certified ISO 17025 structures. Tissue identification tests must be recognized RSIDs, and extensive photographic documentation of the findings (single and full) must be provided. It is also necessary to produce a metric documentation of the spaces within which the finds were present and the distance between the different traces with their relative dimensions (in cm) [5-10].

Obtained the parameters of the spatial and quantitative distribution of the single tracks, and assumed the data of the genetic information, these must be considered by the judge first for the individual tracks (so-called "static elements") and only later, the Judges can perform an integrated analysis of scientific data, capable of reproducing the 3D model of the dynamic of the crime by exploiting scientific information from the sum of the single tracks. This reconstruction may tells to the Judges whether or not results from other scientific disciplines (such as legal medicine, ballistics or fingerprint analysis) are confirmed. By doing so, judges provide a repeatable system they need to evaluate the robustness of the data provided by the sum of the forensic science sectors. By doing so,judges are put in a position to reduce the error for "misleading DNA- related" and above all, it provides an integrated and repeatable test evaluation system (also if the biosocial evidences are not enough for repeat again genetic tests). In particular, to achieve this result it will be very important to improve the search systems for cd latent tracks (eg Crimes coop et similia).

1. Di Roberto Valli (2013) Le indagini scientifiche nel procedimento penale, USA, pp. 1-796.
2. Ricard Li (2015) Forensic biology, (2^nd edn), CRC Press, USA, pp. 1-567.
3. Jaiprakash GS, Ray HL (2013) Forensic DNA analysis: Current practices and emerging technologies, CRC Press, USA.
4. Jane MT (2016) Using forensic DNA evidence at trial: A case study approach, CRC Press, USA, pp. 1-196.
5. Edward EH (2015) Pratical analysis and reconstruction of shooting incidents, (2^nd edn), CRC Press, USA, pp. 1-484.
6. Vernon J Geberth (2006) Pratical homicide investigation: tactics, procedures, and forensic techniques, (4^th edn), USA, pp. 1-1072.
7. Bevel T, Ross M (2008) Gardner bloodstain pattern analysis with an Introduction to Crime Scene Reconstruction, (3^ri edn), CRC Press, USA.
8. (2015) Best practice manual for DNA pattern recognition and comparison, ENFSI.
9. Gill P (2014) Misleading DNA evidence: reasons for miscarriages of justice, (1^st edn), Academic Press, USA, pp. 1-100.
10. Gill P (2016) Analysis and implication of the miscarriages of justice of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. Forensic Sci Int Genet 23: 9-18.