No abstract

No abstract

The evaluation of handwritten characters that are selected from an anonymous letter and written material from a suspect is an open problem in forensic science. The individualization of handwriting is largely dependent on examiners who evaluate the characteristics in a qualitative and subjective way. Precise individual characterization of the shape of handwritten characters is possible through Fourier analysis: each handwritten character can be described through a set of variables such as the surface and harmonics as demonstrated by Marquis and co-workers in 2005. The assessment of the value of the evidence is performed through the derivation of a likelihood ratio for multivariate data. The methodology allows the forensic scientist to take into account the correlation between variables, and the non-constant variability within sources (i.e. individuals). Numerical procedures are implemented to handle the complexity and to compute the marginal likelihood under competing propositions. Copyright (c) 2008 Royal Statistical Society.

The use of the Bayes factor or likelihood ratio as a metric to assess the probative value of forensic traces is largely supported by operational standards and recommendations in di↵erent forensic disciplines. However, the progress towards more widespread consensus about foundational principles is still fragile as it raises new problems about which views di↵er. It is not uncommon, for example, to encounter scientists who feel the need to compute the probability distribution of a given expression of evidential value (i.e., a Bayes factor), or to place intervals or significance probabilities on such a quantity. The paper here presents arguments to show that such views involve a misconception of principles and abuse of language. The conclusion of the discussion is that, in a given case at hand, forensic scientists ought to o↵er to a Court of justice a given single value for the Bayes factor, rather than an expression based on a distribution over a range of values.

Throughout forensic science and adjacent branches, academic researchers and practitioners continue to diverge in their perception and understanding of the notion of 'individualization', that is the claim to reduce a pool of potential donors of a forensic trace to a single source. In particular, recent shifts to refer to the practice of individualization as a decision have been revealed as being a mere change of label [1], leaving fundamental changes in thought and understanding still pending. What is more, professional associations and practitioners shy away from embracing the notion of decision in terms of the formal theory of decision in which individualization may be framed, mainly because of difficulties to deal with the measurement of desirability or undesirability of the consequences of decisions (e.g., using utility functions). Building on existing research in the area, this paper presents and discusses fundamental concepts of utilities and losses with particular reference to their application to forensic individualization. The paper emphasizes that a proper appreciation of decision tools not only reduces the number of individual assignments that the application of decision theory requires, but also shows how such assignments can be meaningfully related to constituting features of the real-world decision problem to which the theory is applied. It is argued that the decisonalization of individualization requires such fundamental insight to initiate changes in the fields' underlying understandings, not merely in their label.

No abstract

Forensic scientists are routinely faced with the problems of making decisions under circumstances of uncertainty (i.e., to perform or not perform a test). A decision making model in forensic science is proposed, illustrated with an example from the field of forensic genetics. The approach incorporates available evidence and associated uncertainties with the assessment of utilities (or desirability of the consequences). The paper examines a general example for which identification will be made of the decision maker, the possible actions, the uncertain states of nature, the possible source of evidence and the kind of utility assessments required. It is argued that a formal approach can help to clarify the decision process and give a coherent means of combining elements to reach a decision.

No abstract