Using the likelihood ratio in bloodstain pattern analysis

There is an apparent paradox that the likelihood ratio (LR) approach is an appropriate measure of the weight of evidence when forensic findings have to be evaluated in court, while it is typically not used by bloodstain pattern analysis (BPA) experts. This commentary evaluates how the scope and methods of BPA relate to several types of evaluative propositions and methods to which LRs are applicable. As a result of this evaluation, we show how specificities in scope (BPA being about activities rather than source identification), gaps in the underlying science base, and the reliance on a wide range of methods render the use of LRs in BPA more complex than in some other forensic disciplines. Three directions are identified for BPA research and training, which would facilitate and widen the use of LRs: research in the underlying physics; the development of a culture of data sharing; and the development of training material on the required statistical background. An example of how recent fluid dynamics research in BPA can lead to the use of LR is provided. We conclude that an LR framework is fully applicable to BPA, provided methodic efforts and significant developments occur along the three outlined directions.     

Of earprints, fingerprints, scent dogs, cot deaths and cognitive contamination--a brief look at the present state of play in the forensic arena

Over the last decades, the importance of technical and scientific evidence for the criminal justice system has been steadily increasing. Unfortunately, the weight of forensic evidence is not always easy for the trier of fact to assess, as appears from a brief discussion of some recent cases in which the weight of expert evidence was either grossly over- or understated. Also, in recent years, questions surrounding the value of forensic evidence have played a major role in the appeal and revision stages of a number of highly publicized criminal cases in several countries, including the UK and the Netherlands. Some of the present confusion is caused by the different ways in which conclusions are formulated by experts working within the traditional approach to forensic identification, as exemplified by (1) dactyloscopy and (2) the other traditional forensic identification disciplines like handwriting analysis, firearms analysis and fibre analysis, as opposed to those working within the modern scientific approach used in forensic DNA analysis. Though most clearly expressed in the way conclusions are formulated within the diverse fields, these differences essentially reflect the scientific paradigms underlying the various identification disciplines. The types of conclusions typically formulated by practitioners of the traditional identification disciplines are seen to be directly related to the two major principles underpinning traditional identification science, i.e. the uniqueness assumption and the individualization principle. The latter of these is shown to be particularly problematic, especially when carried to its extreme, as embodied in the positivity doctrine, which is almost universally embraced by the dactyloscopy profession and allows categorical identification only. Apart from issues arising out of the interpretation of otherwise valid expert evidence there is growing concern over the validity and reliability of the expert evidence submitted to courts. While in various countries including the USA, Canada and the Netherlands criteria have been introduced which may be used as a form of input or output control on expert evidence, in England and Wales expert evidence is much less likely to be subject to forms of admissibility or reliability testing. Finally, a number of measures are proposed which may go some way to address some of the present concerns over the evaluation of technical and scientific evidence.     

Using subsampling to estimate the strength of handwriting evidence via score-based likelihood ratios

The likelihood ratio paradigm has been studied as a means for quantifying the strength of evidence for a variety of forensic evidence types. Although the concept of a likelihood ratio as a comparison of the plausibility of evidence under two propositions (or hypotheses) is straightforward, a number of issues arise when one considers how to go about estimating a likelihood ratio. In this paper, we illustrate one possible approach to estimating a likelihood ratio in comparative handwriting analysis. The novelty of our proposed approach relies on generating simulated writing samples from a collection of writing samples from a known source to form a database for estimating the distribution associated with the numerator of a likelihood ratio. We illustrate this approach using documents collected from 432 writers under controlled conditions.     

论法庭证据评估体系的发展

随着法律和科学的发展,人们对部分传统的法庭科学产生了质疑。本文探讨了传统法庭证据检验的弊端和目前国际上法庭科学证据的接纳原则,推出了似然比法庭证据检验评估体系,包括似然比对证据强度的量化方法、检验结论的科学解释方法和法庭识别系统可靠性的评估方法。     

论声纹鉴定意见的表述形式

本文针对目前国内外讨论比较热烈的声纹鉴定意见表述问题进行了评述.首先介绍了实践中正在使用的听觉分析法、声谱比对分析法、声学分析法、听觉-声学分析法和说话人自动识别五种鉴定方法,指出了各种方法的优缺点;然后对现存的二元判决、可能性等级、似然比和英国立场声明四种鉴定意见表述形式进行了介绍和评析,通过分析发现,上述四种意见表述形式都存在一定的问题,实践中选择何种形式表述鉴定意见要综合考虑其科学性、逻辑性、现实性和可行性等多种价值选项;最后认为解决该问题的根本方法是各相关领域的专家应加强在鉴定方法上的合作性的基础研究.     

The forensic examination of structural fires in Victoria,Australia: Decision-making processes and impact on judicial outcomes

There is a body of published research that has evaluated the contribution of forensic science to the criminal justice system, but many disciplines of forensic science remain unexplored in this regard. The aim of this study was to examine the contribution that forensic fire examination services provide to criminal investigations and court processes in arson cases. Forensic fire examination services differ in a number of ways to the disciplines covered in previous research on the impact of forensic evidence on justice outcomes. Forensic fire examinations involve a combination of scene examination and laboratory analyses, and the results can provide critical evidence of whether an incident that has occurred is a criminal offence (i.e. whether a fire has occurred as the result of an act of arson). Forensic fire examination is also a discipline that has faced challenges and undergone development in recent decades regarding its scientific basis and the issue of contextual bias. In this study, data were collated for 273 structural fires that were examined by the forensic fire services in Victoria, Australia. In this jurisdiction, scene and laboratory forensic services are delivered within short time frames with a focus on providing impartial scientific and investigative services to assist criminal investigations conducted by police. The current dataset was highly skewed in terms of criminal justice outcomes and was not suitable for conducting the planned statistical analyses. Nonetheless, the pattern of findings obtained suggested that the inclusion of forensic evidence which supported the prosecution of arson may be associated with an increased likelihood of suspects being charged and defendants found guilty. Examination of the decision-making process of the forensic fire examiners has provided insight into the variety of evidence that is considered by forensic experts in reaching the important conclusion about the origin and cause of structural fires.     

Forensic Gait Analysis and Recognition: Standards of Evidence Admissibility

Gait is one biological characteristic which has attracted strong research interest due to its potential use in human identification. Although almost two decades have passed since a forensic gait expert has testified to the identity of a perpetrator in court, the methods remain insufficiently robust, considering the recent paradigm shift witnessed in the forensic science community regarding quality of evidence. In contrast, technological advancements have taken the lead, and research into automated gait recognition has greatly surpassed forensic gait analysis in terms of the size of acquired datasets and demographic variability of participants, tested variables, and statistical evaluation of results. Despite these advantages, gait recognition presents with different problems which are yet to be resolved. Therefore, courts should treat gait evidence with caution, as they should any other form of evidence originating from disciplines without fully established codes of practice, error rates, and demonstrable applications in forensic scenarios.     

An extended likelihood ratio framework for interpreting evidence.

This paper reviews some current methods, the likelihood ratio-based approach and the full Bayesian approach for the interpretation of evidence and discusses previously identified shortcomings in them. It suggests an approach based on a compromise--based on an extended likelihood ratio--that may combine the merits of logic without overstepping acceptable bounds for the forensic scientist in the presentation of evidence. The approach is exposed formally and takes advantage of inferential networks called Bayesian networks.     

Investigation Delayed Is Justice Denied: Proposals for Expediting Forensic Examinations of Digital Evidence*

Abstract: There is an urgent need to reduce the growing backlog of forensic examinations in Digital Forensics Laboratories (DFLs). Currently, DFLs routinely create forensic duplicates and perform in‐depth forensic examinations of all submitted media. This approach is rapidly becoming untenable as more cases involve increasing quantities of digital evidence. A more efficient and effective three‐tiered strategy for performing forensic examinations will enable DFLs to produce useful results in a timely manner at different phases of an investigation, and will reduce unnecessary expenditure of resources on less serious matters. The three levels of forensic examination are described along with practical examples and suitable tools. Realizing that this is not simply a technical problem, we address the need to update training and establish thresholds in DFLs. Threshold considerations include the likelihood of missing exculpatory evidence and seriousness of the offense. We conclude with the implications of scaling forensic examinations to the investigation.     

Weakening forensic science in Spain: from expert evidence to documentary evidence

An amendment in 2002 to the Spanish Code of Criminal Procedure converted into documentary evidence the expert reports prepared by official laboratories aimed at determining the nature, weight, and purity of seized drugs. In most cases, experts are spared from appearance before the courts. This is likely to be extended to other forensic fields. After an overview of criminalistic identification in current forensic science, the objectivity and reliability concepts used by jurists and scientists are considered by comparing the paradigm of individualization with that of likelihood. Subsequently, a detailed critical study is made on the above-mentioned Spanish legal reform, and a comparison is made with the decision on the Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts case as ruled by the Supreme Court of the United States. Although the reform is in compliance with the Spanish Constitution, it is at odds with science, in particular regarding the logic underpinning the scientific evaluation of evidence.     

Conceptualising,evaluating and communicating uncertainty in forensic science: Identifying commonly used tools through an interdisciplinary configurative review

This study provides a set of tools for conceptualising, evaluating and communicating uncertainty in forensic science. Given that the concept of uncertainty is one that transcends disciplinary boundaries, an interdisciplinary configurative review was carried out incorporating the disciplines of medicine, environmental science and economics, in order to identify common themes which could have valuable applications to the discipline of forensic science. Critical Interpretive Synthesis was used to develop sub-synthetic and synthetic constructs which interpreted and synthesised the underlying evidence and codes. This study provides three toolkits, one each for conceptualisation, evaluation and communication. The study identified an underlying theme concerning the obstacles that would need to be overcome for the effective application of these toolkits and achieving effective conceptualisation, evaluation and communication of uncertainty in forensic science to lay-stakeholders. These toolkits offer a starting point for developing the conversation for achieving greater transparency in the communication of uncertainty. They also have the potential to offer stakeholders enhanced understanding of the nuances and limitations of forensic science evidence and enable more transparent evaluation and scrutiny of the reliability, relevance and probative value of forensic materials in a crime reconstruction.     

The forensic entomologist in the context of the forensic pathologist's role.

An adequate death investigation requires the combined efforts and cooperation of experts in different disciplines: crime scene technicians, death investigators, forensic pathologists, anthropologists, entomologists, other medical and non-medical professionals. These front-line experts play a crucial role in every death investigation process. The forensic pathologist normally has the legal authority to take charge of the dead body at a death scene and his primary functions are the exterior and interior examination of the cadaver by analyzing the extent of antemortem injuries and the postmortem changes and the recovery of physical evidence. He is responsible for determining how, when and why of any death which is the result of violence, suspicious or unexplained circumstances or a death which is sudden or unattended, defending and explaining the reasons for making these diagnoses in a courtroom. The forensic entomologist can provide invaluable aid in death cases where human remains are colonized by insects and in the overall investigation. His principal role is to identify the arthropods associated with such cases and to analyze entomological data for interpreting insect evidence. He is responsible for determining the period of insect activity according to all the variables affecting insect invasion of remains and their development. The major goal of medico-criminal entomology is to contribute to the determination of the time, cause, manner and place of the investigated death (especially on badly decomposed corpses or skeletonized human remains) with the support of all the elements which can be inferred from the study of insects found on the cadaver or nearby. The application of techniques devised recently in forensic entomology can allow experts in the field to collect strong entomological evidence and provide useful information not only in a death investigation including movement or storage of the remains following death, time of dismemberment, postmortem artifacts on the body but also at the scene, and even more in child neglect, sexual molestation and identification of suspects. As the role of the forensic entomologist at the death scene, at the autopsy and in the laboratory is defined and well known, this paper focuses on the difficulties that could arise if forensic pathologists and entomologists are uncertain about the procedures that they have to follow, do not realize the value of objective findings or fail to evaluate them. Although every forensic case presents a slightly different set of circumstances and has to be tackled individually, the forensic pathologist should work with the forensic entomologist from the visual observations of the cadaver on the scene, through the collection of arthropods and temperature data at the death scene and at the autopsy, up to the final report with the interpretation of entomological and other biological evidence.     

Training of legal professionals in DNA evidence

The South African Criminal Legal System is based on Roman Dutch law. Court proceedings are led by a single presiding officer of the court. Prosecutors and defence advocates present the court with evidence in an adversarial manner. This system has inherent advantages and disadvantages and therefore the training of legal professionals in handling DNA evidence in court is important. The prosecutors resort under the National Prosecuting Authority and the defence advocates act independently or e.g. under the auspices of Legal Aid South Africa.Education curricula of legal professional do not include forensic science evidence. Principles such as evidential value in the forensic context are not addressed. Training of legal professionals with our Essential DNA Evidence™ Course has been a multiplier of forensic science knowledge in the legal profession in South Africa. We present prosecution and defence perspectives in an unbiased manner, compensating for the possible subjective interpretations of evidence that may be presented in court. Forensic evidence is subsequently carefully evaluated prior to being court presentation thus improving court efficiency, and allowing for a more focussed approach to the presentation of evidence. Approaches to the customisation of course content that adds value has been identified via evaluation of training programmes.Experience has shown that legal professionals have the ability to incorporate relatively complex scientific concepts into their legal arguments if provided with the appropriate training opportunity. Appropriate training in DNA evidence has made the court process more effective, both in terms of time and costs, and ultimately serves justice.     

侵入性创伤的微分析——死亡方式的多学科综合分析法

通过概述荷兰法庭科学研究所内法医病理学、法医人类学、工具痕迹学及微量物证学多学科联合进行致伤物推断及致伤物认定的方法。不同领域的法庭科学专家对于案件的检验结果可以相互印证,综合分析各专业检验结果后,得出案件的鉴定结论,并为法庭提供最有效的证据。多学科交叉检验的方法得出的结论,显示出极高的法庭证据价值,更为重要的是能够为致伤物推断和认定提供刑事侦查方向。     

Peer‐Reviewed Forensic Consultation in Practice: Multidisciplinary Oversight in Common Expertise

The fallibility of forensic science consultation is an ongoing and major justice concern. Prospective peer‐reviewed forensic consultation has over 10 years of application in American criminal and civil courts, adapting from the traditional oversight of teaching hospitals, rules of evidence and discovery, conventions of testimony of expert witnesses, and attorneys' overall trial strategy. In systematizing heightened oversight, this process ensures greater accountability in forensic science consultation. The integration of peer reviewers' complementary expertise and experience enhances the sophistication and overall quality of assessment. Forensic examination frequently involves the interface of different specialties. Multidisciplinary peer review augments expert proficiency with that of professional peers having different vantage points from relevant scientific disciplines. This approach ensures greater sophistication of a case inquiry, built‐in accountability, and streamlined processes when multiple experts are necessitated. Here, the authors present examples of several cases and the primary and secondary benefits of this collaborative, rigorous, cross‐disciplinary exercise.     

似然比在法庭说话人确认中的应用

本文把成功应用于DNA检验的证据评估方法（似然比）应用于法庭语音证据评估之中,提取语音的LPC作为识别特征,并使用45人电话对话录音中元音/a/作为样本进行了测试。结果表明该方法不仅能正确识别说话人,而且能根据当前嫌疑人样本和问题语音样本的差异,量化该语音样本作为证据的力度,为法庭提供科学合理的证据评估结果和科学解释。同时,自动特征提取的引入比起人工提取共振峰特征,提高了工作效率,识别系统性能也获得大幅提升。     

Wrongful convictions and claims of false or misleading forensic evidence

The results are reported of a study to examine case factors associated with 732 wrongful convictions classified by the National Registry of Exonerations as being associated with “False or Misleading Forensic Evidence.” A forensic error typology has been developed to provide a structure for the categorization and coding of factors relating to misstatements in forensic science reports; errors of individualization or classification; testimony errors; issues relating to trials and officers of the court; and evidence handling and reporting issues. This study, which included the analysis of 1391 forensic examinations, demonstrates that most errors related to forensic evidence are not identification or classification errors by forensic scientists. When such errors are made, they are frequently associated with incompetent or fraudulent examiners, disciplines with an inadequate scientific foundation, or organizational deficiencies in training, management, governance, or resources. More often, forensic reports or testimony miscommunicate results, do not conform to established standards, or fail to provide appropriate limiting information. Just as importantly, actors within the broader criminal justice system—but not under the purview of any forensic science organization—may contribute to errors that may be related to the forensic evidence. System issues include reliance on presumptive tests without confirmation by a forensic laboratory, use of independent experts outside the administrative control of public laboratories, inadequate defense, and suppression or misrepresentation of forensic evidence by investigators or prosecutors. In approximately half of wrongful convictions analyzed, improved technology, testimony standards, or practice standards may have prevented a wrongful conviction at the time of trial.     

Context Effects in Forensic Entomology and Use of Sequential Unmasking in Casework

Context effects are pervasive in forensic science, and are being recognized by a growing number of disciplines as a threat to objectivity. Cognitive processes can be affected by extraneous context information, and many proactive scientists are therefore introducing context‐minimizing systems into their laboratories. Forensic entomologists are also subject to context effects, both in the processes they undertake (e.g., evidence collection) and decisions they make (e.g., whether an invertebrate taxon is found in a certain geographic area). We stratify the risk of bias into low, medium, and high for the decisions and processes undertaken by forensic entomologists, and propose that knowledge of the time the deceased was last seen alive is the most potentially biasing piece of information for forensic entomologists. Sequential unmasking is identified as the best system for minimizing context information, illustrated with the results of a casework trial (n = 19) using this approach in Victoria, Australia.     

Score-based likelihood ratios for handwriting evidence

Score-based approaches for computing forensic likelihood ratios are becoming more prevalent in the forensic literature. When two items of evidential value are entangled via a scorefunction, several nuances arise when attempting to model the score behavior under the competing source-level propositions. Specific assumptions must be made in order to appropriately model the numerator and denominator probability distributions. This process is fairly straightforward for the numerator of the score-based likelihood ratio, entailing the generation of a database of scores obtained by pairing items of evidence from the same source. However, this process presents ambiguities for the denominator database generation - in particular, how best to generate a database of scores between two items of different sources. Many alternatives have appeared in the literature, three of which we will consider in detail. They differ in their approach to generating denominator databases, by pairing (1) the item of known source with randomly selected items from a relevant database; (2) the item of unknown source with randomly generated items from a relevant database; or (3) two randomly generated items. When the two items differ in type, perhaps one having higher information content, these three alternatives can produce very different denominator databases. While each of these alternatives has appeared in the literature, the decision of how to generate the denominator database is often made without calling attention to the subjective nature of this process. In this paper, we compare each of the three methods (and the resulting score-based likelihood ratios), which can be thought of as three distinct interpretations of the denominator proposition. Our goal in performing these comparisons is to illustrate the effect that subtle modifications of these propositions can have on inferences drawn from the evidence evaluation procedure. The study was performed using a data set composed of cursive writing samples from over 400 writers. We found that, when provided with the same two items of evidence, the three methods often would lead to differing conclusions (with rates of disagreement ranging from 0.005 to 0.48). Rates of misleading evidence and Tippet plots are both used to characterize the range of behavior for the methods over varying sized questioned documents. The appendix shows that the three score-based likelihood ratios are theoretically very different not only from each other, but also from the likelihood ratio, and as a consequence each display drastically different behavior.