/
Logistical Considerations to “Test Every Rape Kit” Logistical Considerations to “Test Every Rape Kit”

Logistical Considerations to “Test Every Rape Kit” - PowerPoint Presentation

briana-ranney
briana-ranney . @briana-ranney
Follow
407 views
Uploaded On 2015-11-26

Logistical Considerations to “Test Every Rape Kit” - PPT Presentation

Jeff Thompson Assistant Laboratory Director SerologyDNA Unit Scientific Investigation Division Los Angeles Police Department ASCLD 42 nd Annual Symposium April 29 2015 20082009 Backlog of unrequested kits ID: 206265

amp dna msd duo dna amp duo msd samples lapd loss time saek category screening rating considerations victims kits

Share:

Link:

Embed:

Download Presentation from below link

Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Logistical Considerations to “Test Eve..." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.


Presentation Transcript

Slide1

Logistical Considerations to “Test Every Rape Kit”

Jeff Thompson

Assistant Laboratory Director

Serology/DNA Unit

Scientific Investigation Division

Los Angeles Police Department

ASCLD 42

nd

Annual Symposium

April 29, 2015Slide2

2008-2009

Backlog of (unrequested) kits:

6,132Average # of kits received per month: ~105Number of bench DNA analysts: ~10Few kits requested & testedExtensive use of outsourcingTurnaround time: >>120 daysChanges & ExpectationsNew hires since 2008: 40+GoalsTurnaround time <90 daysTest ALL kits without outsourcing

LAPD, we have a problem…Slide3

DNA testing determined by

Sperm rating

Microscopy is time-consuming (especially if the kit is negative & includes slides generated by SART nurse)Presence of nucleated epithelial cells on dried secretions E. Cells probative or not? Perioral swab? Thigh swab?Minor’s left hand? Concerns with existing screening protocol - Microscopy & ProbativeSlide4

Medical ReportInformation not always consistent with request submitted by Detectives

Which one do you trust?

Do you screen only the probative items based on the allegations?What if victim reports Loss of Consciousness/Loss of Memory (LOC/LOM)?What do you do if the alleged act is digital penetration? Groping?More concernsSlide5

Inspiration

from Georgia Bureau of Investigation

Switched from microscopy to Quantifiler Duo for screening rape kitsAchieved significant gains in screening productivitySolutionSlide6

GBI Procedural Modification

GBI

GBISlide7

LAPD MSD Procedural Modification

LAPD MSDSlide8

Male Screen Detail Program (MSD) Goals

Increase efficiency of screening

Quantifiler DuoTouch SAEK one time onlyLower turn around times Write one reportExpand duties of new hires DNA Technicians (Screeners trained to extract/quant)Extracts passed on to DNA analystsCan employ personnel without DNA courseworkRevamped Screening of Sexual Assault Evidence Kit (SAEK)Slide9

DNA Analyst

“Triage” –

Determining samples to amplifyScientific DataSperm ResultsMale quantitation (Quantifiler Duo)Male: Female Ratio (Quantifiler Duo)Case ScenarioSingle Suspect vs. Multiple SuspectConsenting PartnerMinor VictimLoss of Consciousness / Loss of MemoryMale Victim or Female SuspectSlide10

Combining Sperm and Quant Duo Results For Differential Samples

Category 2

Sperm Rating >1Quant Duo =1-15 pg/µL

* 3% of samples

Category 1

Sperm Rating >1

Quant

Duo >

15

pg

/µL

* 15% of samples

Category

3

Sperm Rating >1

Quant Duo

=undetected

* 1% of samples

Category

4

Sperm

Rating= 0

Quant Duo

> 15

pg

/µL* 8% of samples

Category 5Sperm Rating = 0Quant Duo =1-15 pg/µL* 14% of samples

Category 6Sperm Rating = 0Quant Duo = undetected* 59% of samplesSlide11

Official start date: December 3, 20121 Supervising Criminalist for case management and admin reviews

9 DNA technicians

11 DNA analystsRotational duties – 2 DNA techs assigned to non-diff extractions and quants per weekDNA analysts float into tech positions, as neededMale Screen Detail (MSD)Slide12

Turnaround time defined as:

DATE REQUEST RECEIVED to DATE REPORT ADMIN REVIEWED

Average 63 daysRange 2-90 daysCurrent Stats Slide13

SAEK Turn Around Time

MSDSlide14

LAPD MSD process vs. LAPD “Old Way”

Processing all kits with fewer personnel than “old way” would require

Increased reagent costs offset by salary savings from increased productivityFaster turn-around Superior analytical resultsComparisonsSlide15

How does MSD compare to other methods?

Selective sampling

(Fast Track Forensics – FTF) used in Los Angeles for several yearsSART Nurse collects additional swabs & submits directly to state lab for DNA extraction and typing (no screening)Based on victim statements and physical findingsFTF continued after implementation of LAPD MSDCases have been processed by both methodsComparisonsSlide16

Randomly selected 50 cases processed both by selective sampling (FTF) & MSD

Compared number of:

swabs examined profiles developedCODIS uploadsCases included42% of victims reported loss of consciousness or loss of memoryComparisonsSlide17

Average # of swabs screened per SAEK

MSD = 7.6

FTF = 0 (unscreened, all are DNA typed)Average # of swabs DNA typed per SAEKMSD = 2.6FTF = 2.6ComparisonsSlide18

MSD vs. FTF – CODIS UploadsSlide19

Will a detective recognize not all SAEK profiles were detected and request additional work?

LAPD had assumed detectives would request all SAEKs be tested that should be tested.

Of the 6,132 unexamined SAEKs identified in the freezer audit:Over 400 were stranger rapesFurther ConsiderationsSlide20

Link casesRapes in two different cities (without an arrest) won’t be linked otherwise

DDA’s will not file many cases with vulnerable victims or consent issues

Some criminals know this and deliberately target vulnerable victims or develop “plausible” consent Without filing, no arrest and no entry into CODISMultiple CODIS hits to the same offender can encourage a DDA to file casesMultiple victims (even with credibility issues) can corroborate each otherWhy Do We Test Every SAEK?Slide21

Gary Ridgway

“Green River Killer”

Convicted of killing 49 (likely over 70)Targeted prostitutes & runawaysRidgway “took advantage of (prostitute) services regularly”Further ConsiderationsSlide22

William Suff

“Lake Elsinore Killer”/“Riverside Prostitute Killer”

Convicted of killing 12 (likely 22)Targeted prostitutesSuff escalated throughout his spreeFurther ConsiderationsSlide23

Did they start

with murder, or sexual assault?

Was their first violent crime a homicide, or a sexual assault?If the latter, did missed opportunities to link cases allow them to victimize others & further hone their “skills” to avoid detection & prosecution? Could their killing sprees have been cut short or eliminated altogether if CODIS had linked them to the reported sexual assaults of multiple vulnerable victims? Final ConsiderationsSlide24

Lab Director Doreen Hudson

Had us examine

other methods to back up our consensus that we were doing things betterSupervising Criminalist Mike Mastrocovo Took GBI’s method and expanded it dramaticallySerology/DNA UnitDid a ton of case work, validations & innovations, under intense media scrutiny & Department pressure, to get us to where we are todayAcknowledgementsSlide25

Jeff Thompson

323-415-8115

N2769@lapd.lacity.orgContact Information