Special issue on measuring and reporting the precision of forensic likelihood ratios: Introduction to the debate

Science and Justice

Volumn 56, Issue 5, 2016, Pages 371-373

  Morrison, Geoffrey Stewart ^a,b  

^a Morrison Enzinger   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

Author keywords

Accuracy; Forensic evidence; Likelihood ratio; Precision; Reliability; Validity

Indexed keywords

JUSTICE; RELIABILITY; STATISTICAL MODEL; VALIDITY;

EID: 84973662808     PISSN: 13550306     EISSN: 18764452     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.scijus.2016.05.002     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. [1] Rose, P., Forensic Speaker Identification. 2002, Taylor & Francis, London, UK.
2. [2] Morrison, G.S., Forensic voice comparison. Freckelton, I., Selby, H., (eds.) Expert Evidence, 2010, Thomson Reuters, Sydney, Australia (ch. 99).
3. [3] Enzinger, E., Morrison, G.S., Ochoa, F., A demonstration of the application of the new paradigm for the evaluation of forensic evidence under conditions reflecting those of a real forensic-voice-comparison case. Sci. Justice 56 (2016), 42–57, 10.1016/j.scijus.2015.06.005.
4. [4] Curran, J.M., Buckleton, J.S., Triggs, C.M., Weir, B.S., Assessing uncertainty in DNA evidence caused by sampling effects. Sci. Justice 42 (2002), 29–37, 10.1016/S1355-0306(02)71794-2.
5. [5] Curran, J.M., An introduction to Bayesian credible intervals for sampling error in DNA profiles. Law Probab. Risk 4 (2005), 115–126, 10.1093/lpr/mgi009.
6. [6] Hancock, S., Morgan-Smith, R., Buckleton, J.S., The interpretation of shoeprint comparison class correspondences. Sci. Justice 52 (2012), 243–248, 10.1016/j.scijus.2012.06.002.
7. [7] Morrison, G.S., Measuring the validity and reliability of forensic likelihood-ratio systems. Sci. Justice 51 (2011), 91–98, 10.1016/j.scijus.2011.03.002.
8. [8] Zhang, C., Morrison, G.S., Ochoa, F., Enzinger, E., Reliability of human-supervised formant-trajectory measurement for forensic voice comparison. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 133 (2013), EL54–EL60, 10.1121/1.4773223.
9. [9] Bright, J.-A., Stevenson, K.E., Curran, J.M., Buckleton, J.S., The variability in likelihood ratios due to different mechanisms. Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 14 (2015), 187–190, 10.1016/j.fsigen.2014.10.013.
10. [10] Morrison, G.S., Lindh, J., Curran, J.M., Likelihood ratio calculation for a disputed-utterance analysis with limited available data. Speech Comm. 58 (2014), 81–90, 10.1016/j.specom.2013.11.004.
11. [11] Enzinger, E., Morrison, G.S., Mismatched distances from speakers to telephone in a forensic-voice-comparison case. Speech Comm. 70 (2015), 28–41, 10.1016/j.specom.2015.03.001.
12. [12] Taylor, D., Bright, J.-A., Buckleton, J.S., Curran, J.M., An illustration of the effect of various sources of uncertainty on DNA likelihood ratio calculations. Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 11 (2014), 56–63, 10.1016/j.fsigen.2014.02.003.
13. [13] Stoel, R.D., Sjerps, M.J., Interpretation of forensic evidence. Roeser, S., Hillerbrand, R., Sandin, P., Peterson, M., (eds.) Handbook of Risk Theory: Epistemology, Decision Theory, Ethics, and Social Implications of Risk, 2012, Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 135–158, 10.1007/978-94-007-1433-5_6.
14. [14] Evett, I.W., Jackson, G., Lambert, J.A., McCrossan, S., The impact of the principle of evidence interpretation on the structure and content of statements. Sci. Justice 40 (2000), 233–239, 10.1016/S1355-0306(00)71993-9.
15. [15] Association of Forensic Science Providers, Standards for the formulation of evaluative forensic science expert opinion. Sci. Justice 49 (2009), 161–164, 10.1016/j.scijus.2009.07.004.
16. [16] Nordgaard, A., Ansell, R., Drotz, W., Jaeger, L., Scale of conclusions for the value of evidence. Law Probab. Risk 11 (2012), 1–24, 10.1093/lpr/mgr020.
17. [17] Willis, S.M., McKenna, L., McDermott, S., O'Donell, G., Barrett, A., Rasmusson, B., Nordgaard, A., Berger, C.E.H., Sjerps, M.J., Lucena-Molina, J.J., Zadora, G., Aitken, C.G.G., Lunt, L., Champod, C., Biedermann, A., Hicks, T.N., Taroni, F., ENFSI guideline for evaluative reporting in forensic science, European Network of Forensic Science Institutes, Wiesbaden, Germany. http://enfsi.eu/sites/default/files/documents/external_publications/m1_guideline.pdf, 2015.
18. [18] Brümmer, N., Swart, A., Bayesian calibration for forensic evidence reporting. Proceedings of Interspeech, 2014, 388–392 ( http://www.isca-speech.org/archive/interspeech_2014/i14_0388.html).
19. [19] Taroni, F., Bozza, S., Biedermann, A., Aitken, C.G.G., Dismissal of the illusion of uncertainty in the assessment of a likelihood ratio. Law Probab. Risk 15 (2015), 1–16, 10.1093/lpr/mgv008.