Score-based likelihood ratios for handwriting evidence

Forensic Science International

Volumn 219, Issue 1-3, 2012, Pages 129-140

  Hepler, Amanda B ^a   Saunders, Christopher P ^a   Davis, Linda J ^b   Buscaglia, JoAnn ^c  

^a GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b George Mason University   (United States)

^c FBI LABORATORY   (United States)

Author keywords

Forensic science; Forensic statistics; Handwriting evidence; Likelihood ratio; Questioned documents; Statistical evidence evaluation

Indexed keywords

ANALYTIC METHOD; ARTICLE; DATA BASE; FORENSIC SCIENCE; HANDWRITING; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LEGAL EVIDENCE; LIKELIHOOD RATIO; MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SCORING SYSTEM; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

EID: 84861578630     PISSN: 03790738     EISSN: 18726283     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2011.12.009     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Aitken C.G.G., Stoney D. The Use of Statistics in Forensic Science 1991, Ellis Horwood Limited, Chichester, England.
2. Champod C., Meuwly D. The inference of identity in forensic speaker recognition. Speech Communication 2000, 31(2-3):193-203.
3. Champod C., Evett I.W., Kuchler B. Earmarks as evidence: a critical review. Journal of Forensic Sciences 2001, 46(6):1275-1284.
4. Lindley D.V. A problem in forensic science. Biometrika 1977, 64:207-213.
5. Curran J.M. The statistical interpretation of forensic glass evidence. International Statistical Review 2003, 71(3):497-520.
6. Champod C., Evett I.W. A probabilistic approach to fingerprint evidence. Journal of Forensic Identification 2001, 51(2):101-122.
7. Evett I.W., Lambert J.A., Buckleton J.S. A Bayesian approach to interpreting footwear marks in forensic casework. Science & Justice 1998, 38(4):241-247.
8. Evett I.W., Weir B.S. Interpreting DNA Evidence 1998, Sunderland, MA, Sinauer.
9. Bozza S., Taroni F., Marquis R., Schmittbuhl M. Probabilistic evaluation of handwriting evidence: likelihood ratio for authorship. Applied Statistics 2008, 57(3):329-341.
10. Nordgaard A., Höglund T. Assessment of approximate likelihood ratios from continuous distributions: a case study of digital camera identification. Journal of Forensic Sciences 2011, 56:390-402.
11. Walch M.A., Gantz D.T., Miller J.J., Davis L.J., Saunders C.P., Lancaster M.L., Lamas A.C., Buscaglia J. Evaluation of the individuality of handwriting using FLASH ID - a totally automated, language independent system for handwriting identification. Proc. of the 2008 AAFS Annual Meeting 2008.
12. Neumann C., Champod C., Puch-Solis R., Egli N., Anthonioz A., Bromage-Griffiths A. Computation of likelihood ratios in fingerprint identification for configurations of three minutiae. Journal of Forensic Sciences 2006, 51:1255-1266.
13. Davis L.J., Saunders C.P., Hepler A.B., Buscaglia J. Using subsampling to estimate the strength of handwriting evidence via score-based likelihood ratios. Forensic Science International 2012, 216(1-3):146-157.
14. Meuwly D. Forensic individualisation from biometric data. Science & Justice 2006, 46:205-213.
15. Gonzalez-Rodriguez J., Ramos D. Forensic automatic speaker classification in the " Coming Paradigm Shift" Speaker Classification I 2007, vol. 4343:205-217. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg.
16. Egli N., Champod C., Margot P. Evidence evaluation in fingerprint comparison and automated fingerprint identification systems - modelling within finger variability. Forensic Science International 2007, 167:189-195.
17. Neumann C., Margot P. New perspectives in the use of ink evidence in forensic science. Part III. Operational applications and evaluation. Forensic Science International 2009, 192:29-42.
18. Neumann C., Evett I.W., Skerrett J. Quantifying the weight of evidence from a forensic fingerprint comparison: a new paradigm. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A 2012, 175(2):1-26.
19. C. Neuman, New Perspectives in the Use of Ink Evidence in Forensic Science, University of Lausanne, Ph.D. Thesis, 2008.
20. Garvin E.J., Koons R.D. Evaluation of match criteria used for the comparison of refractive index of glass fragments. Journal of Forensic Sciences 2011, 56(2):491-500.
21. Aitken C.G.G., Lucy D. Evaluation of trace evidence in the form of multivariate data. Applied Statistics 2004, 53(1):109-122.
22. Aitken C.G.G., Taroni F. Statistics and the Evaluation of Evidence for Forensic Scientists 2004, John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, UK. 2nd ed.
23. Champod C., Evett I.W., Jackson G. Establishing the most appropriate databases for addressing source level propositions. Science & Justice 2004, 44(3):156-164.
24. Ross A., Nandakumar K., Jain A. Handbook of Multibiometrics 2006, Springer, New York, NY.
25. Saunders C.P., Davis L.J., Lamas A.C., Miller J.J., Gantz D.T. Construction and evaluation of classifiers for forensic document analysis. Annals of Applied Statistics 2011, 5(1):381-399.
26. Kullback S., Leibler R.A. On information and sufficiency. Annals of Mathematical Statistics 1951, 22:79-86.
27. Osborn A.S. Questioned Documents 1929, Boyd Printing Company, Albany, NY.
28. Gill P., Curran J., Neumann C. Interpretation of complex DNA profiles using Tippett plots. Forensic Science International: Genetics Supplement Series 2008, 1:646-648.