A probabilistic approach to the joint evaluation of firearm evidence and gunshot residues.

The present paper addresses issues that affect both the separate as well as the joint evaluation of firearm evidence (i.e., marks) and gunshot residues (GSR). Mark evidence will be used as a basis to discriminate among barrels through which a bullet in question might have been shot whereas GSR will be used to draw inferences about the distance of firing. Particular attention is drawn to the coherent handling of uncertainties associated with the various parameters considered within each item of evidence. The proposed analysis relies on a probabilistic viewpoint that uses graphical models (i.e., Bayesian networks) as an aid to cope with the complexity induced by the number of variables considered. The paper discusses how an approach based on a probabilistic network environment can be used for the formal analysis and construction of arguments. Emphasis is made on the gain of insight into structural dependencies that may be uncovered when the evaluative process is extended beyond single items of scientific evidence.

[1]  T. Anderson,et al.  Analysis of evidence : how to do things with facts , 1997 .

[2]  L. Joseph,et al.  Bayesian Statistics: An Introduction , 1989 .

[3]  R. Nichols,et al.  Firearm and Toolmark Identification Criteria: A Review of the Literature , 1997 .

[4]  A. Philip Dawid,et al.  USING A GRAPHICAL METHOD TO ASSIST THE EVALUATION OF COMPLICATED PATTERNS OF EVIDENCE , 1997 .

[5]  Dw Van Boxel,et al.  Probabilistic Expert Systems for Forensic Inference from Genetic Markers , 2002 .

[6]  Ian W. Evett,et al.  A Bayesian approach to interpreting footwear marks in forensic casework , 1998 .

[7]  Bunch,et al.  Consecutive matching striation criteria: a general critique , 2000, Journal of forensic sciences.

[8]  W Lichtenberg,et al.  Methods for the Determination of Shooting Distance. , 1990, Forensic science review.

[9]  J. Wigmore.  The principles of judicial proof as given by logic, psychology, and general experience, and illustrated in judicial trials , 1988 .

[10]  Colin Aitken,et al.  Bayesian Networks and Probabilistic Inference in Forensic Science , 2006 .

[11]  F Taroni,et al.  A general approach to Bayesian networks for the interpretation of evidence. , 2004, Forensic science international.

[12]  Jonathan Whitaker,et al.  Interpreting small quantities of DNA: the hierarchy of propositions and the use of Bayesian networks. , 2002, Journal of forensic sciences.

[13]  Albert S. Osborn,et al.  The Problem of Proof , 1923 .

[14]  Linda C. van der Gaag,et al.  Sensitivity analysis: an aid for belief-network quantification , 2000, The Knowledge Engineering Review.

[15]  Franco Taroni,et al.  Statistics and the Evaluation of Evidence for Forensic Scientists , 2004 .

[16]  D. Schum.  The Evidential Foundations of Probabilistic Reasoning , 1994 .

[17]  F Taroni,et al.  Bayesian networks and probabilistic reasoning about scientific evidence when there is a lack of data. , 2006, Forensic science international.

[18]  David L. Faigman,et al.  Modern scientific evidence : the law and science of expert testimony , 2006 .

[19]  Suzanne Bell.  Encyclopedia of Forensic Science , 2003 .

[20]  Colin Aitken,et al.  Probabilistic reasoning in evidential assessment , 1989 .

[21]  G. Jackson,et al.  The scientist and the Scales of Justice , 2000 .

[22]  Paolo Garbolino,et al.  Evaluation of scientific evidence using Bayesian networks. , 2002, Forensic science international.

[23]  D. Schum,et al.  A Probabilistic Analysis of the Sacco and Vanzetti Evidence , 1996 .