ESTABLISHING FORENSIC EVIDENCE VALUE THROUGH THE BAYESIAN FRAMEWORK AND THE LIKELIHOOD RATIO

  • Jovana Vujošević The Faculty of Security Studies, University of Belgrade, Serbia
  • Božidar Banović The Faculty of Security Studies, University of Belgrade, Serbia
Keywords: Bayes factor, Likelihood ratio, Forensic evidence, DNA, Probability, Court

Abstract

Forensic science alludes the utilization of scientific methods in a lawful setting. Recent events have raised worries about applied techniques in forensic evidence analyses, specifically in which ways forensic scientific evidence is interpreted and presented in the court. Reports have recognized issues as the means deficiency in numerous jurisdictions in regards to the amount of evidence requiring processing, insufficient standardization across laboratory facilities and professionals, and inquiries concerning the analysis, understanding and presentation of evidence. Questions have arisen about the main scientific foundation for forensic exam assessments on evidence types. Statistics has appeared as a crucial discipline for assisting the forensic community in addressing these difficulties. The essential standard components of statistical analysis represent study design, data collection and further analysis, statistical interpretation, outlining and reporting final results. This article explores the important role of forensic evidence, the diversity of forensic fields, current achievements and their limitations, and the expected commitments of more thorough statistical methods, particularly Bayesian approaches and the likelihood ratio in the analyses, interpretations, and forensic evidence report.

References

Biedermann, A., Taroni F. (2012) Bayesian networks for evaluating forensic DNA profiling evidence: a review and guide to literature. Forensic Sci. Int. Genet., 6(2), 147-157.

Biedermann, A., C. Champod, Jackson, G., Gill, P., Taylor, D., Butler, J., Morling, N., Hicks, T., Vuille, J., Taroni, F. (2016) Evaluation of forensic DNA traces when propositions of interest relate to activities: analysis and discussion of recurrent concerns. Front. Genet., 7, 215-220.

Buckleton, J., Bright, J.A., Taylor, D., Evett, I., Hicks, T., Jackson, G., Curran, J.M. (2014) Helping formulate propositions in forensic DNA analysis, Sci. Justice, 54(4), 258-261.

ENFSI (2015) ENFSI Guideline for Evaluative Reporting in Forensic Science: Strengthening the Evaluation of Forensic Results across Europe (STEOFRAE)
https://www.unil.ch/esc/files/live/sites/esc/files/Fichiers%202015/ENFSI%20Guideline%20Evaluative%20Reporting

Evett, I.W., Jackson, G., Lambert J.A. (2000). More on the hierarchy of propositions: exploring the distinction between explanations and propositions. Sci. Justice, 40(1), 3-10.

Gill, P., Hicks, T., Butler, J. M., Connolly, E., Gusmão, L., Kokshoorn, B., Morling, N.,Van Oorschot, R., Parson, W., Prinz, M., Schneider, P. M., Sijen, T., Taylor, D. (2020). DNA commission of the International society for forensic genetics: Assessing the value of forensic biological evidence - Guidelines highlighting the importance of propositions. Part II: Evaluation of biological traces considering activity level propositions. Forensic Science International: Genetics, 44, 102186.

Lund, S.P., Iyer, H. (2017) Likelihood Ratio as Weight of Forensic Evidence: A Closer Look. Journal of Research of National Institute of Standards and Technology, 22(27), 2017.

Meuwly, D., Ramos, D., Haraksim, R. (2017). A guideline for the validation of likelihood ratio methods used for forensic evidence evaluation. Forensic Science International, 276, 142-153.

National Resource Council (NRC) (1996a). Statistical Issues. In: N. Grossblatt (Ed.), The Evaluation of Forensic DNA Evidence. (2nd ed., pp. 125-165), Washington DC, USA: National Academy Press.

National Resource Council (NRC) (1996b). DNA Evidence in the Legal System. In: N. Grossblatt (Ed.), The Evaluation of Forensic DNA Evidence.. (2nd ed., pp. 166-211), Washington DC, USA: National Academy Press.

Neumann, C. & Ausdemore, M. (2020). Defence against the modern arts: the curse of statistics—Part II, ‘Score-based likelihood ratios’. Law, Probability and Risk, 19(1), 21-42.

Pierson S. and Kafadar K. (2016). Statisticians and Forensic Science: A Perfect Match, CHANCE, 29(1), 4-8.

Stern, H. (2017). Statistical Issues in Forensic Science. Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application, 4(1), 225-244.

Taylor, D., Hicks, T., Champod, C. (2016) Using sensitivity analyses in Bayesian Networks to highlight the impact of data paucity and direct future analyses: a contribution to the debate on measuring and reporting the precision of likelihood ratios. Sci. Justice, 56(5), 402-410.

Taylor, D., Kokshoorn, B., Biedermann, A. (2018a) Evaluation of forensic genetics findings given activity level propositions: a review. Forensic Sci. Int. Genet., 36, 34-49.

Taylor, D., Biedermann, A., Hicks, T., Champod, C. (2018b). A template for constructing Bayesian networks in forensic biology cases when considering activity level propositions. Forensic Science International: Genetics, 33, 136-146.

Weir, B. (2007). The rarity of DNA profiles. Annals of Applied Statistics, 1(2): 358–370.
Published
2020-11-27
Section
Informatics and Applied Mathematics in Forensic, Cybercrime and Security Science