Conclusion scale for shoeprint and toolmarks examinations

Journal of Forensic Identification

Volumn 56, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 255-280

  Katterwe, Horst ^a,d   Baldwin, Dave ^a   Van Beest, Marcel ^a   Belser, Charles ^a   Birkett, John ^a   Girod, Alexandre ^a   Keereweer, Isaac ^a   Moes, Michel ^b   Shor, Yaron ^a   Volckeryck, Gerrit ^c   Ytti, Anja ^a  

^a BKA Wiesbaden ^*  (Finland)

^b Federal Police Laboratory Eupen   (Belgium)

^c Laboratorium voor Technische en Wetenschappelijke Politie Brüssel   (Belgium)

^d Forensic Science Institute   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CRIMINAL JUSTICE; FORENSIC IDENTIFICATION; MATHEMATICAL MODEL; PROBABILITY; REVIEW; SHOE; STATISTICAL MODEL; THEORETICAL MODEL;

EID: 33644844263     PISSN: 0895173X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (40)

1. Majamaa, H.; Ytti, A. Survey of the Conclusions Drawn of Similar Footwear Cases in Various Crime Laboratories. For. Sci. Int. 1996, 82 (1), 109-120.
2. Ytti, A.; Majamaa, H.; Virtanen, J. Survey of the Conclusions Drawn of Similar Shoeprint Cases, Part II. Proceedings of the European Meeting for Shoeprint and Toolmark Examiners, The Hague, Netherlands, 1997, pp 157-169.
3. Shor, Y.; Weisner, S. A Survey on the Conclusions Drawn on the Same Footwear Marks Obtained in Actual Cases by Several Experts Throughout the World. J. For. Sci. 1999, 44 (2), 380-384.
4. Keereweer, I. Guideline for Drawing Conclusions Regarding Shoeprint Examinations. Information Bulletin for Shoeprint/Toolmark Examiners 2000, 6, 47-62.
5. Keereweer, I.; van Beest, M.; van de Velde, J. M. Guideline for Evaluating and Drawing Conclusions in Comparative Examination of Shoeprints. Netherlands Forensic Institute: Netherlands, 2005.
6. Cox, R. T. Probability, Frequency and Reasonable Expectation. Am. J. Physics 1946, 14 (1), 1.
7. Bayes, T. An Essay Toward Solving a Problem in the Doctrine of Chances. Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. 1763, 53, 330.
8. Feller, W. An Introduction to Probability Theory and its Application; John Wiley: New York, 1968; p 124.
9. Taroni, F. M.; Champod, C.; Margot, P. Statistics: A Future in Tool Marks Comparison? The AFTE J. 1996, 28 (4), 222-229.
10. Champod, C.; Evett, I. W. A Probabilistic Approach to Fingerprint Evidences. J. For. Ident. 2001, 51 (2), 101-122.
11. Champod, C.; Baldwin, D.; Taroni, F.; Buckleton, J. S. Firearms and Tool Marks Identification: The Bayesian Approach. The AFTE J. 2003, 35 (3), 307-316.
12. Taroni, F.; Biedermann, A. Inadequacies of Posterior Probabilities for the Assessment of Scientific Evidence. Law. Probability and Risk 2005, 4 (1-2), 89-114.
13. Katterwe, H. About the Range of Conclusions. Proceedings of the European Meeting for Shoeprint and Toolmark Examiners, Berlin, Germany, 2001, pp 185-195.
14. Wöger, W. Zu den modernen Grundlagen der Datenauswertung in der Metrologie (Bayes' Theorem, Principle of Maximum Entropy). PTB-Mitteilungen, Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt 2001, 111 (3), 210-225.
15. Bodziak, W. J. Footwear Impression Evidence, 2nd ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, 2000; pp 372-374.
16. Moran, B. A Report on the AFTE Theory of Identification and Range of Conclusions for Tool Mark Identification and Resulting Approaches to Case Work. The AFTE J. 2002, 34 (2), 2002, 227-235.
17. Bodziak, W. J. Traditional Reporting of Footwear Examination Results by the FBI and Other Laboratories in the United States. Proceedings of the European Meeting for Shoeprint and Toolmark Examiners. Berlin, Germany, 2001, pp 143-148.
18. Wiersema, S. J. Is the Bayesian Approach for You? Proceedings of the European Meeting for Shoeprint and Toolmark Examiners, Berlin, Germany, 2001, pp 149-153.
19. Rodowicz, L. Polish Methodology of Forensic Shoeprint Identification. Proceedings of the European Meeting for Shoeprint and Toolmark Examiners, The Hague, Netherlands, 1997, pp 83-95.
20. Shannon, C. E.; Weaver, W. A Mathematical Theory of Communication (Entropy, Probability and Information), University of Illinois Press: Champaign, IL, reprinted 1999.
21. Jaynes, E. T. Information Theory and Statistical Mechanics. Physical Review 1957, 106 (4), 620.
22. Katterwe, H. Forensic Science and Interpreting Evidence: Probability Conclusions in Expert Opinions on Fracture Matching. Proceedings of Material Testing DVM Berlin, 2005, 437-444, ISSN 1861-8154.
23. Judgement of the German Federal Supreme Court (BGH Urt. v. 12.8.1992-5 StR 239/92 (LG Hannover), Beweiswert der DNA-Analyse: neutrale Anfangswahrscheinlichkeit (unbiased estimation: prior odds = I), Neue Juristische Woche NJW, 46, 1992, pp 2976-2977.
24. Rösing, F. W. Standards fü r die Anthropologische Identifikation. Zeitschrift für Strafrecht 1999 (5), 230-232.
25. Knußmann, R. Zur Wahrscheinlichkeitsaussage im morphologischen Identitätsgutachten. Zeitschrift für Strafrecht 1991 (4), 175-177.
26. Saltykov, S. A. Stereometrische Metallographie. VEB Leipzig, 1974, p 334.
27. Turkowski, C. Über die Wahrscheinlichkeit des Auftretens gleicher Muster. Archiv für Kriminologie 1973, 155 (3), 144.
28. Klingenberg, A. Doctoral Dissertation, Tools and Marks: An Identification Problem. Techn. Univ. Lyngby, Danmark, 1980.
29. Katterwe, H. Modern Approaches for the Examination of Toolmarks and Other Surface Marks. For. Sci. Rev. 1996, 8 (1), 45-72.
30. Stone, R. S. How Unique Are Impressed Toolmarks? The AFTE J. 2003, 35 (4), 376-383.
31. Deinet, W. Studies of Models of Striated Marks Generated by Random Processes. J. For. Sci. 1981, 26 (1), 35-50.
32. Deinet, W.; Katterwe, H. The Application of Probability Theory Models on the Comparison of Striations. Proceedings of the Scandinavian Conference on Forensic Science, Linköping, Sweden, 1983, pp 89-94.
33. Katterwe, H. The Matching of Surface Details and its Analysis by Probability Theory Models. J. For. Sci. Soc. 1984, 24 (4), 284.
34. Katterwe, H. Re-occurence of marks. Proceedings of the Probability Methods In Forensic Science. Bundeskriminalamt BKA, Wiesbaden 1986, pp 1-26.
35. Katterwe, H.; Deinet, W. Wahrscheinlichkeitstheoretische Modelle und Werkzeugspuren (Probability Models and Tool Marks). Archiv für Kriminologie 1983, 171 (3), 78-88.
36. Biasotti, A. A. A Statistical Study of Individual Characteristics of Fired Bullets. J. For. Sci. 1959, 4 (1), 34-50.
37. Gardner, G. Y. Computer Identification of Bullets. The AFTE J. 1979, 11 (1), 26-36.
38. Uchiyama, T. The Probability of Corresponding Striae in Toolmarks. The AFTE J. 1992, 24 (4), 273-281.
39. Brackett, J. W. A Study of Idealized Striated Marks and Their Comparisons Using Models. J. For. Sci. Soc. 1970, 10 (1), 27-56.
40. Champod, C.; Evett, I.; Jackson, G.; Birkett, J. Comments on the Scale of Conclusions. Information Bulletin for Shoeprint/Tiremark Examiners 2000, 6 (3), 15-18.