Forensic strength of evidence statements should preferably be likelihood ratios calculated using relevant data, quantitative measurements, and statistical models - A response to Lennard (2013) Fingerprint identification: How far have we come?

Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences

Volumn 46, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 282-292

  Morrison, Geoffrey Stewart ^a   Stoel, Reinoud D ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES   (Australia)

^b NETHERLANDS FORENSIC INSTITUTE   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Evaluation; Evidence; Likelihood ratio; Opinion; Reliability; Statistical model

Indexed keywords

COGNITIVE BIAS; CONSENSUAL VALIDITY; EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE; FINGER DERMATOGLYPHICS; FORENSIC SCIENCE; FORENSIC STRENGTH; HUMAN; INVESTIGATIVE PROCEDURES; MATHEMATICAL MODEL; MATHEMATICAL PHENOMENA; MEASUREMENT PRECISION; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; RELIABILITY; REVIEW; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL MODEL; STATISTICAL PARAMETERS; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; STRENGTH;

EID: 84904764989     PISSN: 00450618     EISSN: 1834562X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00450618.2013.833648     Document Type: Review

References (28)

1. Lennard C. Fingerprint identification: How far have we come? Aus J Forensic Sci. 2013. Doi:10.1080/00450618.2012.752037
2. Aitken CGG, Taroni F. Statistics and the evaluation of forensic evidence for forensic scientist. 2nd ed. Chichester, UK: Wiley; 2004
3. Evett IW. Towards a uniform framework for reporting opinions in forensic science case-work. Sci Just. I998:38:198-202. Doi:10.1016/S1355-0306(98)72105-7
4. Morrison GS, Forensic voice comparison. In: Freckelton, I, Selby, H, (Eds.). Expert evidence. Sydney, Australia: Thomson Reuters; 2010. ch. 99
5. Morrison GS, The likelihood ratio framework and forensic evidence in court: A response to R v T. Int J Evidence Proof. 2012; 1-29. Doi: 10.1350/ijep.2012.16.1.390
6. Morrison GS. Tutorial on logistic-regression calibration and fusion: Converting a score to a likelihood ratio. Aus J Forensic Sci. 2013;45:173-197. Doi:10.1080/00450618.2012.733025
7. Morrison GS. Measuring the validity and reliability of forensic likelihood-ratio systems. Sci Just. 2011;51:91-98. Doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.03. 002
8. Risinger M, Saks M, Thompson W, Rosenthal R. The Daubert/Kumho implications of observer effects in forensic science: Hidden problems of expectation and suggestion. Cal Law Rev. 2002;90:1-56
9. Dror IE, Stoel RD. Cognitive forensics: Human cognition, contextual information and bias. In: Bruinsma G, Weisburd D, (Eds.). Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice. New York: Springer; 2014
10. National Research Council. Strengthening forensic science in the United States: A path forward. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2009
11. Expert Working Group on Human Factors in Latent Print Analysis. Latent print examination and human factors: Improving the practice through a systems approach. Gaithersburg, MD: US Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology; 2012
12. Morrison GS. Distinguishing between forensic science and forensic pseudoscience: Testing of validity and reliability, and approaches to forensic voice comparison. Sci Just. 2013. Doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2013.07.004
13. Neumann C, Evett IW, Skerret J. Quantifying the weight of evidence from a forensic fingerprint comparison: A new paradigm. J Royal Statist Soc A. 2012;175:371-415. Doi:10.1111/ j.1467-985X.2011.01027.x
14. Zhang C, Morrison GS, Enzinger E, Ochoa F. Effects of telephone transmission on the performance of formant-Trajectory-based forensic voice comparison-female voices. Speech Com. 2013;55:796-813. Doi:10.1016/j.specom. 2013.01.011
15. Coombs CH. A theory of data. 5th ed. New York: Wiley; 1964
16. Moore DS. 2010. The basic practice of statistics. New York: Freeman
17. Box GEP, Draper NR. Empirical model-building and response surfaces. Oxford: Wiley;1987
18. Morrison GS, Ochoa F, Thiruvaran T. Database selection for forensic voice comparison. In: Proceedings of Odyssey 2012: The Language and Speaker Recognition Workshop, Singapore. International Speech Communication Association; 2012: P. 62-77
19. Curran JM, Hicks-Champod TN, Buckleton JS. Forensic interpretation of glass evidence. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2000
20. Kerkhoff W, Stoel RD, Mattijssen EJAT, Hermsen R. The likelihood ratio approach in cartridge case and bullet comparison. Assoc Firearm Toolmark Examiners J. 2013;45:284-290
21. Hancock S, Morgan-Smith R, Buckleton J. The interpretation of shoeprint comparison class correspondences. Sci Just. 2012;52:243-248. Doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2012.06.002
22. Hastie T, Tibshirani R, Friedman J. The elements of statistical learning: Data mining, inference, and prediction. 2nd ed. New York: Springer; 2009
23. Curran JM, Buckleton JS, Triggs CM, Weir BS. Assessing uncertainty in DNA evidence caused by sampling effects. Sci Just. 2002;42:29-37. Doi:10.1016/S1355-0306(02)71794-2
24. Curran JM. An introduction to Bayesian credible intervals for sampling error in DNA profiles. Law Prob Risk. 2005;4:115-126. Doi:10.1093/lpr/mgi009
25. Stoel RD, Sjerps MJ. Interpretation of forensic evidence. In: Roeser S, Hillerbrand R, Sandin P, Peterson M, (Eds.). Handbook of risk theory: Epistemology, decision theory, ethics, and social implications of risk. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer Netherlands; 2012: 135-158. Doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-1433-5-6
26. Zhang C, Morrison GS, Ochoa F, Enzinger E. Reliability of human-supervised formant-Trajectory measurement for forensic voice comparison. J Acoust Soc Am. 2013;133:54-60. Doi:10.1121/1.4773223
27. Robertson B, Vignaux GA. Interpreting evidence. Chichester, UK: Wiley; 1995
28. Royall RM On the probability of observing misleading statistical evidence. J Am Stat Assoc. 2000;95:760-780. Stable URL: Http://www.jstor.org/ stable/2669456.