Helping formulate propositions in forensic DNA analysis

被引:24
作者
Buckleton, John [1 ]
Bright, Jo-Anne [1 ,2 ]
Taylor, Duncan [3 ]
Evett, Ian [4 ]
Hicks, Tacha [5 ]
Jackson, Graham [6 ,7 ]
Curran, James M. [2 ]
机构
[1] ESR Ltd, Auckland 1142, New Zealand
[2] Univ Auckland, Dept Stat, Auckland 1, New Zealand
[3] Forens Sci South Australia, Adelaide, SA 5000, Australia
[4] Principal Forens Serv Ltd, London, England
[5] Univ Lausanne, Inst Police Sci & Fdn Format Continue Univ Lausan, Lausanne, Switzerland
[6] Adv Forens Sci, St Andrews, Fife, Scotland
[7] Univ Abertay Dundee, Sch Contemporary Sci, Dundee DD1 1HG, Scotland
关键词
Forensic DNA interpretation; Mixtures; Propositions; Investigation; Evaluation; Role; INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY; HIERARCHY; RECOMMENDATIONS; COMMISSION; FRAMEWORK; GENETICS; COURT;
D O I
10.1016/j.scijus.2014.02.007
中图分类号
DF [法律]; D9 [法律]; R [医药、卫生];
学科分类号
0301 ; 10 ;
摘要
The Bayesian paradigm is the preferred approach to evidence interpretation. It requires the evaluation of the probability of the evidence under at least two propositions. The value of the findings (i.e., our LR) will depend on these propositions and the case information, so it is crucial to identify which propositions are useful for the case at hand. Previously, a number of principles have been advanced and largely accepted for the evaluation of evidence. In the evaluation of traces involving DNA mixtures there may be more than two propositions possible. We apply these principles to some exemplar situations. We also show that in some cases, when there are no clear propositions or no defendant, a forensic scientist may be able to generate explanations to account for observations. In that case, the scientist plays a role of investigator, rather than evaluator. We believe that it is helpful for the scientist to distinguish those two roles. (C) 2014 The Chartered Society of Forensic Sciences. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:258 / 261
页数:4
相关论文
共 16 条
[1]   Evidence evaluation: A response to the court of appeal judgment in R v T [J].
Berger, Charles E. H. ;
Buckleton, John ;
Champod, Christophe ;
Evett, Ian W. ;
Jackson, Graham .
SCIENCE & JUSTICE, 2011, 51 (02) :43-49
[2]   A hierarchy of propositions: deciding which level to address in casework [J].
Cook, R ;
Evett, IW ;
Jackson, G ;
Jones, PJ ;
Lambert, JA .
SCIENCE & JUSTICE, 1998, 38 (04) :231-239
[3]   The impact of the principles of evidence interpretation on the structure and content of statements [J].
Evett, I ;
Jackson, G ;
Lambert, JA ;
McCrossan, S .
SCIENCE & JUSTICE, 2000, 40 (04) :233-239
[4]  
Evett IW, 2002, J FORENSIC SCI, V47, P520
[5]   More on the hierarchy of propositions: exploring the distinction between explanations and propositions [J].
Evett, IW ;
Jackson, G ;
Lambert, JA .
SCIENCE & JUSTICE, 2000, 40 (01) :3-10
[6]  
Evett IW, 1998, INTERPRETING DNA EVI
[7]   DNA commission of the International Society of Forensic Genetics: Recommendations on the interpretation of mixtures [J].
Gill, P. ;
Brenner, C. H. ;
Buckleton, J. S. ;
Carracedo, A. ;
Krawczak, M. ;
Mayr, W. R. ;
Morling, N. ;
Prinz, M. ;
Schneider, P. M. ;
Weir, B. S. .
FORENSIC SCIENCE INTERNATIONAL, 2006, 160 (2-3) :90-101
[8]   A new methodological framework to interpret complex DNA profiles using likelihood ratios [J].
Gill, P. ;
Haned, H. .
FORENSIC SCIENCE INTERNATIONAL-GENETICS, 2013, 7 (02) :251-263
[9]   DNA commission of the International Society of Forensic Genetics: Recommendations on the evaluation of STR typing results that may include drop-out and/or drop-in using probabilistic methods [J].
Gill, P. ;
Gusmao, L. ;
Haned, H. ;
Mayr, W. R. ;
Morling, N. ;
Parson, W. ;
Prieto, L. ;
Prinz, M. ;
Schneider, H. ;
Schneider, P. M. ;
Weir, B. S. .
FORENSIC SCIENCE INTERNATIONAL-GENETICS, 2012, 6 (06) :679-688
[10]   The nature of forensic science opinion - a possible framework to guide thinking and practice in investigations and in court proceedings [J].
Jackson, G. ;
Jones, S. ;
Booth, G. ;
Champod, C. ;
Evett, I. W. .
SCIENCE & JUSTICE, 2006, 46 (01) :33-44