Forensic reports use various types of conclusions, such as a categorical (CAT) conclusion or a likelihood ratio (LR). In order to correctly assess the evidence, users of forensic reports need to understand the conclusion and its evidential strength. The aim of this paper is to study the interpretation of the evidential strength of forensic conclusions by criminal justice professionals. In an online questionnaire 269 professionals assessed 768 reports on fingerprint examination and answered questions that measured self-proclaimed and actual understanding of the reports and conclusions. The reports entailed CAT, verbal LR and numerical LR conclusions with low or high evidential strength and were assessed by crime scene investigators, police detectives, public prosecutors, criminal lawyers, and judges. The results show that about a quarter of all questions measuring actual understanding of the reports were answered incorrectly. The CAT conclusion was best understood for the weak conclusions, the three strong conclusions were all assessed similarly. The weak CAT conclusion correctly emphasizes the uncertainty of any conclusion type used. However, most participants underestimated the strength of this weak CAT conclusion compared to the other weak conclusion types. Looking at the self-proclaimed understanding of all professionals, they in general overestimated their actual understanding of all conclusion types.
DOCUMENT
Forensic DNA Trace Evidence Interpretation: Activity Level Propositions and Likelihood Ratios provides all foundational information required for a reader to understand the practice of evaluating forensic biology evidence given activity level propositions and to implement the practice into active casework within a forensic institution. The book begins by explaining basic concepts and foundational theory, pulling together research and studies that have accumulated in forensic journal literature over the last 20 years.The book explains the laws of probability - showing how they can be used to derive, from first principles, the likelihood ratio - used throughout the book to express the strength of evidence for any evaluation. Concepts such as the hierarchy of propositions, the difference between experts working in an investigative or evaluative mode and the practice of case assessment and interpretation are explained to provide the reader with a broad grounding in the topics that are important to understanding evaluation of evidence. Activity level evaluations are discussed in relation to biological material transferred from one object to another, the ability for biological material to persist on an item for a period of time or through an event, the ability to recover the biological material from the object when sampled for forensic testing and the expectations of the prevalence of biological material on objects in our environment. These concepts of transfer, persistence, prevalence and recovery are discussed in detail in addition to the factors that affect each of them.The authors go on to explain the evaluation process: how to structure case information and formulate propositions. This includes how a likelihood ratio formula can be derived to evaluate the forensic findings, introducing Bayesian networks and explaining what they represent and how they can be used in evaluations and showing how evaluation can be tested for robustness. Using these tools, the authors also demonstrate the ways that the methods used in activity level evaluations are applied to questions about body fluids. There are also chapters dedicated to reporting of results and implementation of activity level evaluation in a working forensic laboratory. Throughout the book, four cases are used as examples to demonstrate how to relate the theory to practice and detail how laboratories can integrate and implement activity level evaluation into their active casework.
LINK
Are professionals better at assessing the evidential strength of different types of forensic conclusions compared to students? In an online questionnaire 96 crime investigation and law students, and 269 crime investigation and legal professionals assessed three fingerprint examination reports. All reports were similar, except for the conclusion part which was stated in a categorical (CAT), verbal likelihood ratio (VLR) or numerical likelihood ratio (NLR) conclusion with high or low evidential strength. The results showed no significant difference between the groups of students and professionals in their assessment of the conclusions. They all overestimated the strength of the strong CAT conclusion compared to the other conclusion types and underestimated the strength of the weak CAT conclusion. Their background (legal vs. crime investigation) did have a significant effect on their understanding. Whereas the legal professionals performed better compared to the crime investigators, the legal students performed worse compared to crime investigation students.
DOCUMENT
