Comments on “The database search problem” with respect to a recent publication in Forensic Science International

Nordgaard, Anders; Hedberg, Karin; Widén, Christina; Ansell, Ricky

doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2011.11.023

Cited by 9 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Debates on database searches periodically emerge in the literature. In a recent exchange, Nordgaard [82] asks: "why does this debate keep re-emerging?" and provides an answer: "..the risk behind the fear is that the court would not use prior odds for the individual to be the source of the recovered DNA.…”

Section: (7)mentioning

confidence: 99%

DNA commission of the International society for forensic genetics: Assessing the value of forensic biological evidence - Guidelines highlighting the importance of propositions

Gill

Hicks

Butler

et al. 2018

Forensic Science International: Genetics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The interpretation of evidence continues to be one of the biggest challenges facing the forensic community. This is the first of two papers intended to provide advice on difficult aspects of evaluation and in particular on the formulation of propositions. The scientist has a dual role: investigator (crime-focused), where often there is no suspect available and a database search may be required; evaluator (suspect-focused), where the strength of evidence is assessed in the context of the case. In investigative mode, generally the aim is to produce leads regarding the source of the DNA. Sub-source level propositions will be adequate to help identify potential suspects who can be further investigated by the authorities. Once in evaluative mode, given the defence version of events of the person of interest, it may become necessary to consider alternatives that go beyond the source of the DNA (i.e., to consider activity level propositions). In the evaluation phase, it is crucial that formulation of propositions allows the assessment of all the results that will help with the issue at hand. Propositions should therefore be precise (indication of the number of contributors, information on the relevant population etc.), be about causes, not effects (e.g. a 'matching' DNA profile) and to avoid bias, must not be findings-led. This means that ideally, propositions should be decided based on the case information and before the results of the comparisons are known. This paper primarily reflects upon what has been coined as "sub-source level propositions". These are restricted to the evaluation of the DNA profiles themselves, and help answer the issue regarding the source of the DNA. It is to be emphasised that likelihood ratios given sub-source level propositions cannot be carried over to a different level - for example, activity level propositions, where the DNA evidence is put into the context of the alleged activities. This would be highly misleading and could give rise to miscarriages of justice; this will be discussed in a second paper. The value of forensic results depends not only on propositions, but also on the type of results (e.g. allelic designations, peak heights, replicates) and upon the model used: it is therefore important to discuss these aspects. Finally, since communication is key to help understanding by courts, we will explore how to convey the value of the results and explain the importance of avoiding the practice of transposing the conditional.

show abstract

Section: (7)mentioning

confidence: 99%

DNA commission of the International society for forensic genetics: Assessing the value of forensic biological evidence - Guidelines highlighting the importance of propositions

Gill

Hicks

Butler

et al. 2018

Forensic Science International: Genetics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In this case it was not clear to the court that Bayes' Theorem had been used and the database information had been incorporated to provide a likelihood ratio -the notes and the final report did not match in terms of this detail (R v T [2010] EWCA Crim 2439). There are many databases in use within forensic science (see for example, Nordgaard et al 6 ), and while their use was not questioned, there was an implication that they needed to be of a certain size and form to allow for such statistical approaches to be used. Such is the complexity of this ruling and its implications that HE must respond.…”

Section: New Directionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Should Higher Education respond to recent changes in the forensic science marketplace?

Rankin

Taylor

Thompson

2016

NEW DIR TEACH PHYS SCI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The evolution of forensic science within the United Kingdom over the past four decades has been rapid and dynamic. This has included policy responses to highly public miscarriages of justice, introduction of commercialisation and pioneering scientific developments such as DNA profiling. However even within this context, changes within forensic science over the last two years has been unprecedented; such as the closure of The Forensic Science Service; a Home Office review of Research and Development within forensic science; the challenges facing fingerprint identification as a result of The Fingerprint Inquiry (Scotland) and the embryonic development of a new professional body for the police force. Correspondingly, development of forensic science within Higher Education (HE) has been substantially transformed from a small number of Masters Courses in forensic science delivered by a small number of universities, to a plethora of undergraduate courses now available throughout the United Kingdom. This rapid expansion of forensic science courses has been openly criticised and debated and it is incumbent upon the university to not only focus on education but also to provide graduates with transferrable skills making them more employment ready. As a consequence HE establishments must be cognisant of and reactive to changes within any associated industry and respond to changes accordingly. However, have the universities delivering forensic science courses fully responded to these recent and unprecedented developments in the history of forensic science within the United Kingdom? This paper will consider the most recent changes to the forensic science marketplace and their ramifications for forensic science education within the HE sector. Challenges which have resulted from the changes will be highlighted and the educational impact on forensic science courses throughout the UK and their future will be evaluated in chronological order.

show abstract

“…While it is true that a larger database may make a match more likely, this also means that more individuals have been shown to be excluded as non-contributors. However, it is generally not the domain of the forensic scientist to introduce prior odds into the case deliberations (Sjerps and Meester 2009;Biedermann et al 2011;Nordgaard et al 2012). It is the role of the court to evaluate additional non-DNA factors in each case.…”

Section: Forensic Dna Databasesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Forensic DNA Analysis

Prinz¹,

Lessig²

2014

Handbook of Forensic Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Comments on “The database search problem” with respect to a recent publication in Forensic Science International

Cited by 9 publications

References 12 publications

DNA commission of the International society for forensic genetics: Assessing the value of forensic biological evidence - Guidelines highlighting the importance of propositions

DNA commission of the International society for forensic genetics: Assessing the value of forensic biological evidence - Guidelines highlighting the importance of propositions

Should Higher Education respond to recent changes in the forensic science marketplace?

Forensic DNA Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About