Eugenio D’Orio has completed his BSc in general biology, from the “Federico II” University of Naples, 2010, and has done his M.Sc. degree in “molecular and diagnostic biology”. He is a Biologist with a strong background in molecular biology, genetics (forensic and human), and clinical research. He was a researcher at the University of Copenhagen, a section of forensic genetics, where he did a research study on the development of biotechnical tools that can improve the power of detection of the biological evidence from the item (Alternative Light Source). From 2016, he is a part of a list of Consultants for the Ministry of Justice (Italy). He also had more than three years of clinical analysis practice in a hospital, two publications on the topic of molecular diagnostic, and he took several courses in many universities. From 2019, he is the President of UniBio for (Italian society of forensic biologists), and from 2020, he is the Principal Scientist of Bio Forensics Research Center, institute that performs research on forensic biology. He has done many courses like (“Completed evidence analysis”, from West Virginia University, 2016), (“Forensic examiner”, in Advanced school in investigation and criminology, from Italy, 2016), (“Forensic science and DNA analysis”, from University of Cambridge (UK), 2015), and (“Gene and the human condition”, from University of Maryland. 2015). He has excellent knowledge of the genetic engineering techniques, as a vector plasmid modification and evaluation of an expression.
He completed various advanced courses, like- Advance course on “Genes and the human condition”, released by Maryland University, USA, June 2015, and many others. He has more than 20 publications. For professional development or to improve his knowledge and skills in biology, as human genetics, forensic genetics, and clinical biology, he usually follows several conferences and meetings. He always loved the DNA investigation field and fascinated by its practice approaches, as forensic genetics, cancer research, pharmacogenomics, molecular medicine, and molecular diagnosis.
1. Over the course of your experience in this field, what are the types of cases you have dealt with?
“I used to work on the investigation of several crime cases, such as homicide and sexual assault. I worked on these cases from different perspectives: from the investigation to the Courtroom examination of the data, etc. In a minor part, I also worked on paternity cases.”
2. What inspired you to join the field of forensic science, and most importantly, what motivation lead you to the position you are at today?
“Since childhood, I have had a goal, or maybe we can call it a mission to work in the field of science. I have always loved science. My friends and I have always been inclined towards science since our childhood. They had always imagined themselves working in laboratories, hospitals, etc. Whereas, on the other hand, I had always wanted to use my love for science to support human rights or the justice system. This has been my ambition ever since. But as an adolescent, I had no proper vision or idea about how to make this happen.
In fact, in Italy, it is a challenge to get into this line of work. It is not always necessary that a person having an academic background in a particular field of study will most certainly get a job in the same field. Before I got a job as a university professor, it was uncertain that I would be able to apply for an academic position.
Anyway, the reason I chose this field is that, as a teenager, I always had this vision of using science to serve the community. So as a scientist, I needed to be clear on how I could use science for community service. Finally, I realized that working as a forensic scientist would be the most appropriate career for me.”
3. You have completed courses related to forensic evidence and DNA analysis from USA and UK. How different is, the experience compared to your home country, Italy.
“Yes, of course! I would love to. There are several courses regarding this area. This summer, I followed an American conference which was about ‘Trace Evidence Technology’. I found the conference to be quite interesting as it was entirely dedicated to this field of study. Some of the technologies that were discussed during the conference were relatively new, while they also discussed some standard technologies that are already in use. The discussion primarily focused on how to change the approach towards the application of these technologies in a manner such that it can be useful in the area of trace evidence detection and analysis. It was quite interesting to know about the novel ways of applying new and existing technologies for these purposes. For example, we are aware that the use of light sources is quite beneficial for various purposes in science. In fact, it has been in use for several years now. In recent times, some of my colleagues from the forensic fraternity, have started using light sources for forensic paint recognition and identification purposes as well. I found this to be quite interesting.
When we talk about improving the detection tools used in forensic science, I feel there are two main points that we need to address. Firstly, the development of new scientific technologies for forensic purposes., and secondly, we need to come up with new and innovative ways of applying existing technologies to various areas of forensic science. For example, when we look at DNA Technology, it was initially introduced to be applied in the field of life sciences. The procedures involved in the analysis of DNA include DNA extraction, quantification, PCR, and a few other stages of analysis. These procedures were followed by our colleagues belonging to the field of medicine, biology, and biotechnology. With the growing awareness about the use of DNA technology, scientists gradually started learning that it has a wide scope of applicability and that it could be useful in the field of forensic science as well. Thus, DNA Fingerprinting Technology was introduced, which has proven to be one of the most useful technologies in forensic science. This example explains my second point.
Now coming back to my first point, while developing and introducing new tools & technologies for research and analysis purposes, we need to ensure that they are thoroughly tested and evaluated for their accuracy and efficiency. If these technologies are being introduced in the laboratories, it must be ensured that the laboratory has the necessary infrastructure to accommodate such tools & technologies. In addition to this, scientists and other laboratory personnel must be given sufficient training on how to handle and maintain these instruments. All these factors must be considered while setting up new tools & technologies in the laboratories. Otherwise, we can always try to find new applications of the existing technologies and use them for various forensic purposes.”
4. With an expertise in detection of biological evidences, can you share with us your work with improving the detection tools?
“First of all, I have to explain that in the field of detection of biological evidence, we still miss internationally recognized protocols. Right now we have many guidelines. Unfortunately, guidelines can generate different approaches and different results in terms of the amount of the biological evidence detected by the forensic operators. In order to get protocols as soon as possible, at Bio Forensics Research Center, we are working in order to perform a big standardization of the methodologies and the technologies actually available. After we complete this step, we will be able to evaluate the relative efficiency for each instrumentation/methodology. This will lead to important goals in terms of improvement of the evidence detection.”
5. What are the most commonly faced challenges in the field of forensic biology and forensic genetics?
“One of the main challenges that we face in the field of forensic biology and forensic genetics, is when it comes down to effective communication of the scientific data to our colleagues who do not have much understanding of the scientific aspects of biological evidence. It may include personnel from the police department or legal professions. We need to be especially careful while communicating about our scientific data or findings with the judges and lawyers in the court of law.
In general, DNA and other biological evidence can provide clues and answers to solve court cases, and also help in convicting or defending people accused of being involved in a criminal case. We have to be very careful while dealing with DNA evidence found at a crime scene. Just because the DNA of a particular person has been identified to be present at the scene of the crime, it does not necessarily mean that the person is guilty of committing the crime.
When it comes to communicating scientific information regarding forensic biology, I can give you a comparison of this situation in different countries. In the United States, our colleagues take measures to ensure that the scientific information is properly communicated in the courtroom by presenting it in a simplified language, which can be easily understood by the legal professionals present there. They make sure that they answer the questions of the prosecutor or the defence lawyer with clarity. They ensure to specify the scientific details regarding the DNA evidence such whether it belongs to the particular person in question; the procedure used for DNA identification; the accuracy of the methods used for the analysis of the DNA, etc. However, they cannot answer questions regarding how the DNA evidence may have been released or found on the items present at the crime scene, and also regarding whether the person is guilty for committing the crime, merely based on the DNA evidence. They use a conservative approach in order to avoid the risk of the genetic data being over-evaluated by the Judge while concluding the case.
However, In Italy, this is not the case. I work as a forensic consultant here and have also been included among the list of experts at the Italian Authority of Justice. I have witnessed and have also been a part of several investigations and courtroom discussions where everything was based on the DNA evidence. While dealing with criminal cases, few of my colleagues give their opinion based on the results obtained through the DNA analysis of the evidence. In cases where there is a positive match between the DNA evidence of the accused and the evidence found at the crime scene, my colleagues who work on behalf of the prosecution, state that the evidence proves the accused to be guilty. Merely based on this fact, the prosecution appeals to the court for the conviction of the accused, stating that he or she is guilty of committing the crime. However, this is not how it should work.
In such cases, I opine to the Judge while stating that they cannot establish with certainty that the person under investigation is guilty merely because his DNA evidence was found at the crime scene. It could also be possible that the DNA evidence was transferred to the items at the crime scene way before the crime had even occurred. In that case, it would make such evidence irrelevant to the investigation. Unless there is solid proof to support the claim that the DNA evidence from the accused could have been transferred to the items on the crime scene as a result of the commission of the crime, we cannot say with certainty that the person is guilty of the said crime. We can only state whether the DNA evidence belongs to the accused or not. We are not at liberty to opine that the presence of DNA evidence is sufficient to prove the guilt of the person.
It must be understood that while dealing with such cases, the Judges consider the opinion of Experts, to draw a conclusion and provide the correct judgment on a case. This is why communication of the Forensic Expert must be done with great care and attention. If the Forensic Expert unknowingly provides misleading information regarding the DNA evidence related to a case, it could potentially hinder the delivery of the right judgment on the case. This is currently the main challenge that we face as forensic geneticists, and need to work on improving in this aspect.”
6. Being a consultant for the Ministry of Justice in Italy, what does your job entail?
“In Italy, I am on the list of expert consultants for forensic biology. This means that a judge or the prosecutor can contact me for my expertise in the field and may require my service to check or evaluate the DNA evidence. This may be required for both criminal and civil cases, such as paternity disputes, etc. Since I am included on the list of experts, whenever I am summoned to the court of law by a judge who is seeking my expert opinion regarding any case, I cannot refuse to be at his service. However, I have the liberty to choose whether or not to work on a case put forward by a Lawyer. Of course, we do have standard criteria for our work, and we are given a salary based on the work we do. Apart from this, we are also granted a certain amount of money that would be required to carry out our work.
I am not a Police Officer, this means I often work for the Judge and not the Prosecutor. This is because, In Italy, it so happens that the Prosecutors are often considered superior to the Police, and may use the police for the investigation. While they do so, they generally do not contact a forensic consultant who does not belong to the Police. Some of my colleagues, who belong to the Police Department, sometimes work as consultants for the Prosecutors. In contrast to this, the Judges prefer calling forensic consultants like us, from an external source, who would have a neutral approach towards the case as we are not Police officers. The Judges prefer consulting forensic personnel from Universities, who have extensive experience in teaching and research.”
7. In your career as a professor what are your key principles in training and educating the next generation of Scientists?
“I feel that there are different approaches to teaching and educating students. However, the first thing I teach my students is to be an honest forensic scientist. As a forensic scientist, It should not matter whether we are working on behalf of the Prosecution or the Defense. While dealing with criminal cases, we must not approach the case with the objective of convicting a person. Instead, our aim must be to find the truth, and state the facts as it is. We must have an unprejudiced approach to the case. We must focus on conducting our analysis & evaluation in an honest and ethical manner and must state the facts in the Report. It should not concern us whether the scientific findings favour the Prosecution or the Defense, we just need to do our duty honestly.
Secondly, I also teach my students the importance of communicating scientific findings in a clear and simplified manner, which can be comprehended by a layman.
Thirdly, I try to help my students get a holistic understanding of the subject, and guide them regarding the career options that lie ahead for them in the field of Forensic Biology and Forensic Genetics. I tell them that before they pick their desired career path in these fields, they must know about the various options that they can explore.
They have the option to pursue a career as a technician in a laboratory setting. They can pursue a career in Research and Academia, or even become a Forensic Consultant. While picking their career path, they must have an idea of what they are signing up for. They must have an understanding of the nature of the job, and what to expect from it. Once they have a clear vision about this, they can pick a suitable career option as per their interest. It is my duty as their teacher, to give them a clear understanding of what career options lie ahead for them.
For example, on completion of their education, the students of Forensic Biology or Forensic Genetics can apply for jobs as a forensic geneticist, DNA Analyst, Lab Technician, etc., which is predominantly in a Laboratory setting. Their job would entirely deal with the analysis of the Biological or DNA Evidence, and submitting the reports regarding the same. However, these jobs don’t give much of an on-field experience related to forensics. After gaining enough years of experience in this field, they can apply for being a Forensic Consultant, as I did.
Presently, we are working with some of my colleagues who have retired from the Italian Police service, to develop a new course dealing with the competence and knowledge of Forensic Biologists on the crime scene. We would also like to obtain a certification with the ISO standards for the forensic biologists – a personal certification, I mean. This can be the ISO 17024. With the help of this, we will be able to ensure the highest quality of work performed by Forensic Professionals. This certification will be internationally valid as it will be based on international standards, and a neutral evaluation of the knowledge and the competence of each forensic biologist expert will be carried out.
I feel this is necessary as it is not possible to standardize a crime scene in the same manner as we standardize the laboratory. The conditions at a crime scene are entirely different, and it solely depends on the skills of the forensic expert to effectively deal with various evidence present there. Thus, such a certification course would be helpful to equip the forensic scientists with a standardized approach and specialized skills to deal with various scenarios and crime scenes, which would enable them to be competent to deal with such cases more efficiently. We are currently working on such certifications, and are hoping to introduce it by 2021.”
8. With time, crimes have evolved in many ways, how has the investigation procedures evolved with that?
“As I mentioned before, the investigation procedures can vary among different countries and sometimes even between different states of the same country. I have previously worked in Denmark as a Researcher, during which my Research Unit was also called the Crime Unit since all the items collected by the Police used to arrive at our Unit. However, it is a different scenario in Italy. Here, the Police officers are given specialized training regarding this. The same does not happen in Denmark. Since I have witnessed both of these situations, I can state that the investigation procedures vary from place to place. But it is important to understand that using different procedures when dealing with crime scenes having biological evidence is not recommendable, as it may hinder the investigation. Thus, standardized procedures must be implemented for the same. Nonetheless, the main problem is the different documentations that the bureaucrats in different countries provide regarding the investigation process. In Denmark and the United Kingdom, the operators provide a lot of documentation in terms of Legal Acts based on which they report the investigation. They describe the condition of the crime scenes, the condition of evidence collected from the crime scenes, with the specification of all the biological evidence that they were able to identify. They also provide a lot of photo and video documentation of the crime scene. Moreover, they really take care of the chain of custody until the evidence arrives at the laboratories. These documentations proves valuable for the forensic scientists, based on which they would be able to understand and evaluate whether the evidence is in proper condition at the time of arrival, or whether it was tampered with before arriving at the laboratory. The chain of custody also helps the forensic scientist to convey the same to the Judge in a court of law with valid proof.”
“In Italy, we are supposed to follow the international standards regarding the crime scene procedures, the documentation of evidence, the collection of evidence, and maintenance of chain of custody. However, based on what I have witnessed in Italy, we are quite far away from actually following the International Standards. In many of the cases where I was called upon as a Forensic Consultant, I have seen that several crucial pieces of information or documentation were found to be missing from the report submitted to the court. In some cases, the procedures followed for investigations were unsatisfactory, and improper methods were followed for analysis of evidence. This is the reason why we are unable to conduct a correct and strategic investigation. This shows that we need to improve quite a lot in this area to meet the International Standards of investigation procedures.”
9. With new advancements in technologies every now and then, how advanced are the labs that you work in?
“I direct Bio Forensics Research center, i.e., specialized on the development of a technology for biological stain identification and collection. After the collection and identification, I send my samples to the genetics lab, my lab is a focused traced lab. I think new technology can give us a very great benefit. As I started to work on alternative light sources they are not new tools but we make a new approach and are able to make protocols that just happened 2years ago. I am also working with new technology- Hyperspectral camera, hyperspectral vision; these kinds of technology we use for comparative tests. We make a job for standardization and preparation of trace evidence. Because this new technology hyperspectral can give us a big range to check the information regarding the small quantity of biological traces. Actually I am quite surprised how strong these technologies are. Soon I’ll be publishing some data on this point. I can tell you this new technology from the engineering field applies very well to our necessity as a trace lab. So that’s incredible and yeah we have a lot to do. And I’m quite happy.”
10. How important do you think it is for a forensic officer to visit a crime scene for investigation?
“As I have said before, next year we want to promote the international certification course for forensic science professionals in charge for the buildup of the collection and examination of the forensic traces at the Crime Scenes (ISO 17024). As a Forensic biologist or forensic scientist you are incomplete if you don’t belong to the strong background of forensic science. Forensic scientists are the best in the lab if you know all the technology, methodology and generation of the possibility of the significance of forensic science. If you look at the importance of technology and analysis is not properly done then it will be of no use. You need to categorize yourself differently from other professionals to be able work anywhere. I strongly believe and agree on this.”
11. In your experience, on an average considering all aspects of investigations, how long will a normal case take?
“Well, this depends on the case itself. If we are talking about a case of homicide, the investigation generally takes up to one year. If we find very strong evidence that indicates the involvement of a person in the homicide, and the person admits to the same, then the case could be concluded within six months. But normally, in Italy, it takes at least one year to carry out the entire investigation into a case of homicide, however, the duration may extend in cases of insufficient evidence to prosecute the criminal. When the prosecutor accuses someone of being guilty, the person is at the risk of being incarcerated. Whether the accused is guilty or not, the burden of proof lies on the defence to prove his innocence in such cases. This entire legal proceeding takes a very long time to conclude, and thus most of the criminal cases in Italy extend to one or more years.”
“On the other hand, while dealing with civil cases such as cases of disputed parentage, court proceedings take much longer to conclude, extending up to three or more years, as they are not considered as “Priority” cases.”
12. What was the case you found most challenging to solve?
“Very difficult question! Each case is a big challenge! In order to reply to this question, I can tell you about one of the cases that I strongly worked on, because I think it must be corrected using the newest forensic DNA knowledges. In Italy in the year 2002, a man – Gianfranco Cherubini – had been convicted to lifelong in prison because the Jury declared him guilty for the homicide of his wife which happened in the garage of their apartment. Cherubini had been convicted in the total absence of a direct witness and in the total absence of scientific proofs against him. After 18 years, I got the assignment for new investigations and I discovered 3 different blood evidence – collected at the time by the police but never used in the previous Courtroom. These evidence were strongly relevant for the case investigations: they all were from blood and they were in three different position on the “way out” of the killer. Well, before me (in 2020) none of the investigators made a comparison between the DNA from these three evidences (same DNA profile, a male) and the DNA profile of Mr. Cherubini. I did this comparison after 18 years and the results were quite impressive. There is absolutely no match! This means that there has been a different person that was present at that time on the crime scene and – probably – committed this homicide. I think these three DNA evidence are the “proof of the innocence” of Mr Cherubini. Using these new data, we asked to the Italian Supreme Court to re-open the case. We are still waiting for the answer from them.”
13. According to you what are the challenges that a Forensic Profession face in Court of Law and how important is for Forensic Professional to well verse with Law and Judicial officer to have a knowledge about Forensic evidence?
“In our conversation for far, I briefly spoke to you about the importance of proper communication of scientific data to the criminal justice professionals. To do this, we require strong cooperation with lawyers, judges, and police officers as well. This is because they are the ones responsible to find the guilty persons. However, as a forensic scientist, we are qualified to find evidence and scientific information related to a given case and establish the relevant facts which would support the Judge in making an informed decision. We must avoid the scientific information that we provide related to a particular case, and this requires interdisciplinary work and continuous connection between forensic scientists, lawyers, and judges.”
“In fact, in Italy, I am the President of the Forensic Biologist Association, where we have a panel of members including Forensic Biologists, Lawyers, and Judges. All the members put forward their opinions, recommendations, and concerns regarding various aspects of the field, discuss and come to a common agreement on a particular issue. It is very important to have such a mutual understanding and good communication with all the members of the panel to be able to function efficiently. The main objective of this Association is to unite the criminal justice professionals and forensic personnel, where they may share the knowledge about their respective fields and provide their expertise. I have been a part of this Association for the last two years, here in Italy, and we have started to see the changes take place gradually, the legal professionals have started understanding the importance of Forensic Professionals in the criminal justice system. Earlier, when DNA evidence used to be presented in court, Judges used to take decisions immediately after obtaining the evidence from the Police, without the consultation or opinion of an Expert. However, things have started to improve now, as most lawyers and judges actively seek the expertise of Forensic Scientists and ask for a scientific explanation regarding the evidence in question.”
“By including more number of Forensic Experts in this manner, it will ensure that we (Forensic Scientists) will be able to actively contribute to the criminal justice system, which is the objective of our Association. The unification of the forensic scientists and criminal justice professionals in such a manner must be promoted not only in Italy but also at an international level which would certainly bring a positive change in the delivery of criminal justice.”
