Selection effects and database screening in forensic science

Forensic Science International

Volumn 192, Issue 1-3, 2009, Pages 56-61

  Sjerps, Marjan ^a   Meester, Ronald ^b  

^a NETHERLANDS FORENSIC INSTITUTE   (Netherlands)

^b VU UNIVERSITY AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Database search; Evaluation of evidence; Interpretation; Post hoc correction; Selection bias; Selection effects

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CRIME; CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR; CRIMINAL JUSTICE; DATA ANALYSIS; DATA BASE; DNA DETERMINATION; EXPERT WITNESS; FIBER; FORENSIC GENETICS; FORENSIC IDENTIFICATION; FORENSIC SCIENCE; GENE LOCUS; GENETIC DATABASE; INCIDENCE; INFORMATION PROCESSING; LAW; LEGAL EVIDENCE; MOLECULAR MODEL; OFFENDER; POLICE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; SCIENTIST; VICTIM;

EID: 70349631862     PISSN: 03790738     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2009.07.022     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Evett I.W., and Weir B.S. Interpreting DNA Evidence (1998), Sinauer, Sunderland, MA
2. In: Buckleton J., Triggs C.M., and Walsh S.J. (Eds). Forensic DNA Evidence Interpretation (2005), CRC Press, Boca Raton
3. Balding D.J. Weight-of-Evidence for Forensic DNA Profiles (2005), Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK
4. Fung W.K., and Hu Y.-Q. Statistical DNA Forensics-Theory, Methods and Computation (2008), Wiley & Sons, Chichester UK
5. Stockmarr A. Likelihood ratios for evaluating DNA evidence when the suspect is found through a database search. Biometrics 55 (1999) 671-677
6. National Research Council. DNA technology in Forensic Science (1992), National Academy Press, Washington, DC
7. National Research Council. The Evaluation of Forensic DNA Evidence (1996), National Academy Press, Washington, DC
8. Walsh S., and Buckleton B.J. DNA intelligence databases. In: Buckleton J., Triggs C.M., and Walsh S.J. (Eds). Forensic DNA Evidence Interpretation (2005), CRC Press, Boca Raton
9. Meester R., and Sjerps M. The evidential value in the DNA database search controversy and the two-stain problem. Biometrics 59 (2003) 727-732
10. Meester R., and Sjerps M. Why the effect of prior odds should accompany the likelihood ratio when reporting DNA evidence. Law, Probability and Risk 3 (2004) 51-62 (see also the discussion and response, p. 63-86)
11. Aitken C.G.G. Population and samples. In: Aitken C.G.G., and Stoney D.A. (Eds). The Use of Statistics in Forensic Science (1991), Ellis Horwood Lmt, Chichester
12. Stoney D.A. Transfer evidence. In: Aitken C.G.G., and Stoney D.A. (Eds). The Use of Statistics in Forensic Science (1991), Ellis Horwood Lmt, Chichester, UK
13. Robertson B., and Vignaux G.A. Interpreting Evidence-evaluating Forensic Science in the Courtroom (1995), Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK
14. Aitken C.G.G., and Taroni F. Statistics and the Evaluation of Evidence for Forensic Scientists. 2nd ed. (2004), Wiley and Sons, Chichester
15. Evett I.W., Lambert J.A., and Buckleton J.S. A Bayesian approach to interpreting footwear marks in forensic science. Science & Justice 38 (1998) 241-247
16. Cook R., Evett I.W., Jackson G., Jones P.J., and Lambert J.A. A hierarchy of propositions: deciding which level to address in casework. Science and Justice 38 (1998) 231-239
17. Balding D.J., and Donnelly P.J. DNA profile evidence when the suspect is identified through a database search. Journal of Forensic Science 41 (1996) 603-607
18. Dawid A.P., and Mortera J. Coherent analysis of forensic identification evidence. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B 58 (1996) 425-443
19. Dawid A.P. Comment on Stockmarr's "Likelihood ratios for evaluating DNA evidence when the suspect is found through a database search". Biometrics (2001) 976-980
20. Balding D.J. The DNA database search controversy. Biometrics 58 (2002) 241-244
21. Donnelly P., and Friedman R.D. DNA database searches and the legal consumption of scientific evidence. Michigan Law Review 97 (1999) 931-984
22. D.H. Kaye, Rounding up the usual suspects: a legal and logical analysis of DNA trawling cases, North Carolina Law Review (2009) 87 (2).