Distinguishing between forensic science and forensic pseudoscience: Testing of validity and reliability, and approaches to forensic voice comparison

Science and Justice

Volumn 54, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 245-256

  Morrison, Geoffrey Stewart ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES   (Australia)

Author keywords

Acoustic phonetic; Aural; Forensic voice comparison; Reliability; Spectrographic; Validity

Indexed keywords

COMPARATIVE STUDY; DATA BASE; FORENSIC SCIENCE; HUMAN; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; RELIABILITY; REVIEW; STATISTICAL MODEL; UNITED KINGDOM; VALIDITY; VOICE;

ACOUSTIC-PHONETIC; AURAL; FORENSIC VOICE COMPARISON; RELIABILITY; SPECTROGRAPHIC; VALIDITY;

BIOMETRIC IDENTIFICATION; FORENSIC SCIENCES; HUMANS; LIKELIHOOD FUNCTIONS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SOUND SPECTROGRAPHY; VOICE;

EID: 84899929923     PISSN: 13550306     EISSN: 18764452     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.scijus.2013.07.004     Document Type: Review

References (45)

1. Edmond G., Mercer D. Trashing "junk science". Stanford Technology Law Review 1998, (3):1-86. (http://stlr.stanford.edu/STLR/Articles/98_STLR_3).
2. National Research Council Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward 2009, National Academies Press, Washington, DC, http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12589.
3. Cediel A., Bergman L. The Real CSI: How Reliable is the Science Behind Forensics? PBS Frontline April 17 2012, WGBH Educational Foundation, Boston, MA, (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/real-csi/).
4. Cole S.A. Acculturating forensic science: what is 'scientific culture', and how can forensic scientists adopt it?. Fordham Urban Law Journal 2010, 38:435-472. (http://ssrn.com/abstract=1788414).
5. Morrison G.S., Evett I.W., Willis S.M., Champod C., Grigoras C., Lindh J., Fenton N., Hepler A., Berger C.E.H., Buckleton J.S., Thompson W.C., González-Rodríguez J., Neumann C., Curran J.M., Zhang C., Aitken C.G.G., Ramos D., Lucena-Molina J.J., Jackson G., Meuwly D., Robertson B., Vignaux G.A. Response to Draft Australian Standard: DR AS 5388.3 Forensic Analysis - Part 3 - Interpretation 2012, (http://forensic-evaluation.net/australian-standards/#Morrison_et_al_2012).
6. Morrison G.S. The likelihood-ratio framework and forensic evidence in court: a response to R v T. International Journal of Evidence and Proof 2012, 16:1-29. 10.1350/ijep.2012.16.1.390.
7. Morrison G.S., Ochoa F., Thiruvaran T. Database selection for forensic voice comparison. Proceedings of Odyssey 2012: The Language and Speaker Recognition Workshop 2012, 62-77. International Speech Communication Association, Singapore, http://geoff-morrison.net/documents/Morrison,%20Ochoa,%20Thiruvaran%20(2012)%20Database%20selection%20for%20forensic%20voice%20comparison.pdf.
8. Morrison G.S. Measuring the validity and reliability of forensic likelihood-ratio systems. Science & Justice 2012, 51:91-98. 10.1016/j.scijus.2011.03.002.
9. Evett I.W., Aitken C.G.G., Berger C.E.H., Buckleton J.S., Champod C., Curran J.M., Dawid A.P., Gill P., González-Rodríguez J., Jackson G., Kloosterman A., Lovelock T., Lucy D., Margot P., Mckenna L., Meuwly D., Neumann C., Nic Daeid N., Nordgaard A., Puch-Solis R., Rasmusson B., Radmayne M., Roberts P., Robertson B., Roux C., Sjerps M.J., Taroni F., Tjin-A-Tsoi T., Vignaux G.A., Willis S.M., Zadora G. Expressing evaluative opinions: a position statement. Science & Justice 2011, 51:1-2. 10.1016/j.scijus.2011.01.002.
10. Robertson B., Vignaux G.A. Interpreting Evidence 1995, Wiley, Chichester UK.
11. Balding D.J. Weight-of-Evidence for Forensic DNA Profiles 2005, Wiley, Chichester, UK.
12. Morrison G.S. Forensic voice comparison. Expert Evidence 2010, Thomson Reuters, Sydney, Australia, (ch. 99). http://www.thomsonreuters.com.au/forensic-voice-comparison-expert-evidence/productdetail/91156. I. Freckelton, H. Selby (Eds.).
13. Morrison G.S. Tutorial on logistic-regression calibration and fusion: converting a score to a likelihood ratio. Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences 2013, 45:173-197. 10.1080/00450618.2012.733025.
14. Evett I.W. Interpretation: a personal odyssey. The Use of Statistics in Forensic Science 1991, 9-22. Ellis Horwood, Chichester UK. C.G.G. Aitken, D.A. Stoney (Eds.).
15. Morrison G.S., Rose P., Zhang C. Protocol for the collection of databases of recordings for forensic-voice-comparison research and practice. Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences 2012, 44:155-167. 10.1080/00450618.2011.630412.
16. Hollien H. Forensic Voice Identification 2002, Academic Press, San Diego CA.
17. Koenig B.E. Review of Hollien (2002) Forensic voice identification. Journal of Forensic Identification 2002, 52:762-766.
18. Gruber J.S., Poza F. Voicegram identification evidence. American Jurisprudence Trials 1995, 54(1):§1-§133.
19. Meuwly D. Reconnaissance de locuteurs en sciences forensiques: L'apport d'une approche automatique 2001, Doctoral dissertation, University of Lausanne, (www.unil.ch/webdav/site/esc/shared/These.Meuwly.pdf).
20. Meuwly D. Le mythe de l'empreinte vocale I. Revue Internationale de Criminologie et Police Technique 2003, 56:219-236.
21. Meuwly D. Le mythe de l'empreinte vocale II. Revue Internationale de Criminologie et Police Technique 2003, 56:361-374.
22. Rose P. Forensic Speaker Identification 2002, Taylor and Francis, London, UK.
23. Tosi O. Voice Identification: Theory and Legal Applications 1979, University Park Press, Baltimore, MD.
24. Mcgregor G., Maher S. Tories now admit they sent Saskatchewan robocall: Forensic expert links company behind latest push poll to firm behind Pierre Poutine calls. Ottawa Citizen February 5 2013, (http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Tories+admit+they+sent+Saskatchewan+robocall/7922470/story.html).
25. Tosi O., Oyer H., Lashbrook L., Pedrey C., Nicol J., Nash E. Experiment on voice identification. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1972, 51:2030-2043. 10.1121/1.1913064.
26. Pickett J.M. Annual report of the Speech Communication Technical Committee. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1969, 46:687-688.
27. Bolt R.A., Cooper F.S., David E.E., Denes P.B., Pickett J.M., Stevens K.N. Speaker identification by speech spectrograms: a scientists' view of its reliability for legal purposes. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1970, 47:597-612. 10.1121/1.1911935.
28. Morrison G.S. Forensic voice comparison and the paradigm shift. Science & Justice 2009, 49:298-308. 10.1016/j.scijus.2009.09.002.
29. National Research Council On the Theory and Practice of Voice Identification 1979, National National Academies Press, Washington, DC, http://books.google.ca/books?id=FjMrAAAAYAAJ.
30. Expert Working Group on Human Factors in Latent Print Analysis Latent Print Examination and Human Factors: Improving the Practice through a Systems Approach 2012, US Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, (http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=910745).
31. Bevington P.R., Robinson D.K. Data Reduction and Error Analysis for the Physical Sciences 2003, McGraw Hill, Boston, MA. 3rd edition.
32. Bolt R.A., Cooper F.S., David E.E., Denes P.B., Pickett J.M., Stevens K.N. Speaker identification by speech spectrograms: some further observations. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1973, 54:531-534. 10.1121/1.1913613.
33. Greene H.F. Voiceprint identification: the case in favor of admissibility. American Criminal Law Review 1975, 13:171-200.
34. Ladefoged P. An opinion on voiceprints. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics 1971, 19:84-87. http://escholarship.org/uc/item/4k81b31v.
35. Solan L.M., Tiersma P.M. Hearing voices: speaker identification in court. Hastings Law Journal 2003, 54:373-435.
36. Koenig B.E. Spectrographic voice identification: a forensic survey. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1986, 79:2088-2090. 10.1121/1.393170.
37. Archer C. HSNW conversation with Hirotaka Nakasone of the FBI: voice recognition capabilities at the FBI - from the 1960s to the present. Homeland Security News Wire July 11 2012, (http://www.homelandsecuritynewswire.com/bull20120711-voice-recognition-capabilities-at-the-fbi-from-the-1960s-to-the-present).
38. International Association for Forensic Phonetics and Acoustics Resolution on voiceprints http://www.iafpa.net/voiceprintsres.htm.
39. Poza F.T., Begault D.R. Voice identification and elimination using aural-spectrographic protocols. Proceedings of the Audio Engineering Society 26th International Conference: Audio Forensics in the Digital Age 2005, (paper 1-1).
40. American Board of Recorded Evidence Voice comparison standards http://www.tapeexpert.com/pdf/abrevoiceid.pdf.
41. French J.P., Harrison P. Position Statement concerning use of impressionistic likelihood terms in forensic speaker comparison cases. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 2007, 14:137-144. 10.1558/ijsll.v14i1.137.
42. Rose P., Morrison G.S. A response to the UK position statement on forensic speaker comparison. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 2009, 16:139-163. 10.1558/ijsll.v16i1.139.
43. French J.P., Nolan F., Foulkes P., Harriaon P., Mcdougall L. The UK position statement on forensic speaker comparison: a rejoinder to Rose and Morrison. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 2010, 17:143-152. 10.1558/ijsll.v17i1.143.
44. Gold E., French J.P. International practices in forensic speaker comparison. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 2011, 18:143-152. 10.1558/ijsll.v18i2.293.
45. Nolan F. The Phonetic Bases of Speaker Recognition 1983, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.