A Bayesian network approach to the database search problem in criminal proceedings

Investigative Genetics

Volumn 3, Issue 1, 2012, Pages

  Biedermann, Alex ^a   Vuille, Joëlle ^b   Taroni, Franco ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LAUSANNE   (Switzerland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Bayesian approach; Bayesian networks; Database search; Evidential value

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BAYES THEOREM; CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK; CRIME; CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR; CRITICAL THINKING; DATA BASE; DATABASE SEARCH PROBLEM; FEASIBILITY STUDY; FORENSIC GENETICS; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INVESTIGATIVE PROCEDURES; LEGAL EVIDENCE; POPULATION SIZE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; STAIN; STATISTICAL DISTRIBUTION;

EID: 84872194714     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20412223     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/2041-2223-3-16     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Aas KF. " The body does not lie" : identity, risk and trust in technoculture. Crime, Media, Culture: Int J 2006, 2:143-158.
2. Giannelli PC. The DNA story: an alternative view. J Criminal Law and Criminology 1997, 88:380-422.
3. Viriot-Barrial D. De l'identification d'une personne par ses empreintes génétiques. Le droit de la biologie humaine, vieux débats, nouveaux enjeux 2000, 81-115. Paris: Ellipses, Sériaux A.
4. Murphy E. The new forensics: criminal justice, false certainty and the second generation of scientific evidence. California Law Rev 2007, 95:754-756.
5. Carbasse JM. Histoire du droit pénal et de la justice criminelle 2000, Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 2nd.
6. Robertson B, Vignaux GA. Probability - the logic of the Law. Oxford J Legal Stud 1993, 13:457-478.
7. Dawid AP. Bayes's Theorem and weighing evidence by juries. Bayes's Theorem Proceedings of the British Academy 2002, 71-90. Oxford: Oxford University Press, Swinburne R, 3516481, 23275882.
8. Aitken CGG, Roberts P, Jackson G. Fundamentals of probability and statistical evidence in criminal proceedings, guidance for judges, lawyers, forensic scientists and expert witnesses. Royal Statistical Society's Working Group on Statistics and the Law; 2010.
9. Sjerps M, Meester R. Selection effects and database screening in forensic science. Forensic Sci Int 2009, 192:56-61. 10.1016/j.forsciint.2009.07.022, 19747786.
10. Balding DJ, Donnelly P, Nichols RA. Some causes for concern about DNA profiles - comment. Stat Sci 1994, 9:248-251.
11. Balding DJ, Donnelly P. Inference in forensic identification. J R Stat Soc, Ser A 1995, 158:21-53.
12. Balding DJ, Donnelly P. Evaluating DNA profile evidence when the suspect is identified through a database search. J Forensic Sci 1996, 41:603-607.
13. Berry DA [DNA Fingerprinting: a review of the controversy]: comment. Stat Sci 1994, 9:252-255. Berry DA.
14. Dawid AP Comment on Stockmarr's " likelihood ratios for evaluating DNA evidence, when the suspect is found through a database search" Biometrics 2001, 57:976-978. Dawid AP.
15. Donnelly P, Friedman RD. DNA database searches and the legal consumption of scientific evidence. Michigan Law Rev 1999, 97:931-984.
16. Evett IW, Weir BS. Interpreting DNA Evidence 1998, Sunderland: Sinauer Associates Inc..
17. Evett IW, Foreman LA, Weir BS. Letter to the editor. Biometrics 2000, 56:1274-1277.
18. Kaye DH. Rounding up the usual suspects: a logical and legal analysis of DNA trawling cases. North Carolina Law Rev 2009, 87:425-503.
19. Taroni F, Biedermann A, Garbolino P, Aitken CGG. A general approach to Bayesian networks for the interpretation of evidence. Forensic Sci Int 2004, 139:5-16. 10.1016/j.forsciint.2003.08.004, 14687767.
20. Taroni F, Aitken CGG, Garbolino G, Biedermann A. Bayesian Networks and Probabilistic Inference in Forensic Science 2006, Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
21. Biedermann A, Gittelson S, Taroni F. Recent misconceptions about the 'database search problem': a probabilistic analysis using Bayesian networks. Forensic Sci Int 2011, 212:51-60. 10.1016/j.forsciint.2011.05.013, 21664776.
22. Balding DJ. Weight-of-Evidence for Forensic DNA Profiles 2005, Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
23. Pearl J. Reverend Bayes on inference engines: a distributed hierarchical approach. Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI'82) 1982, 133-136. Pittsburgh: Morgan Kaufmann.
24. Robertson B, Vignaux GA. Taking fact analysis seriously. Michigan Law Rev 1993, 91:1442-1464.
25. Aitken CGG, Connolly T, Gammerman A, Zhang G, Bailey D, Gordon R, Oldfield R. Statistical modelling in specific case analysis. Sci & Justice 1996, 36:245-255. 10.1016/S1355-0306(96)72610-2, 23275544.
26. Aitken CGG, Gammerman A, Zhang G, Connolly T, Bailey D, Gordon R, Oldfield R. Bayesian belief networks with an application in specifc case analysis. Computational Learning and Probabilistic Reasoning 1996, 169-184. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons, Gammerman A.
27. Boondao R. Crime risk factor analysis. Bayesian Networks: A Practical Guide to Applications 2008, 73-111. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Pourret O, Naïm P, Marcot B.
28. Daniels DC, Hudson LD, Laskey KB, Mahoney SM, Ware BS, Wright EJ. Terrorism risk management. Bayesian Networks: A Practical Guide to Applications 2008, 239-262. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Pourret O, Naïm P, Marcot B.
29. Edwards W. Influence diagrams, Bayesian imperialism, and the Collins case: an appeal to reason. Cardozo Law Rev 1991, 13:1025-1074.
30. Levitt TS, Blackmond L. Computational inference for evidential reasoning in support of judicial proof. Cardozo Law Rev 2001, 22:1691-1731.
31. Kadane JB, Schum DA. A Probabilistic Analysis of the Sacco and Vanzetti Evidence 1996, New York: John Wiley & Sons.
32. Thagart P. Why wasn't O.J. convicted? Emotional coherence and legal inference. Cognition and Emotion 2003, 17:361-383.
33. Schneider PM, et al. Recommendations of the German Stain Commission regarding the statistical evaluation of matches following searches in the national DNA database. Rechtsmedizin 2010, 20:111-115.
34. Aitken CGG, Taroni F. Statistics and the Evaluation of Evidence for Forensic Scientists 2004, Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
35. Buckleton JS, Triggs CM, Walsh SJ. Forensic DNA Evidence Interpretation 2005, Boca Raton: FL CRC Press.
36. Stockmarr A. Likelihood ratios for evaluating DNA evidence when the suspect is found through a database search. Biometrics 1999, 55:671-677. 10.1111/j.0006-341X.1999.00671.x, 11314992.
37. Werrett DJ. The national DNA database. Forensic Sci Int 1997, 88:33-42.
38. Harbison SA, Hamilton JF, Walsh SJ. The New Zealand DNA databank: its development and significance as a crime solving tool. Sci & Justice 2001, 41:33-37. 10.1016/S1355-0306(01)71846-1, 23275544.
39. Champod C, Vuille J. Sentific evidence in Europe - Admissibility, appraisal and equality of arms. Comparative study on scientific evidence drawn up for the Bureau of the Council of Europe's European Committee on Crime Problems (CDPC). Tech. rep., Council of Europe's European Committee on Crime Problems (CDPC) 2010.