Applications and limitations of Forensic Biomechanics: a Bayesian perspective.

Forensic Biomechanics is an analytic method intended for presentation in a court of law. The method consists of the reconstruction of an injury mechanism followed by a comparison between the injury risk of the mechanism and the injury tolerance of the individual. In recent years some courts have excluded such testimony based, in part, on the inability of experts to quantify the potential error of the methods they relied upon in reaching their conclusions. The application of Bayes' Law to a forensic test of truth in a disputed matter allows for quantification of the error inherent in the method through the conditioning of the pre-test probability of the test outcome with the true and false positive rate of the test. The result of the calculation is the Error Odds (O(E)) for the test, or the ratio of correct to incorrect tests. We present an Error Odds analysis of seven previously published case studies in Forensic Biomechanics as an illustration of the utility of the O(E) as a metric for admissibility of testimony in the courts, with a minimum Error Odds ratio of 10 proposed as a threshold. The results of our analysis yielded only 1 of 7 cases of applied Forensic Biomechanics that surpassed the threshold for admissible testimony of 10, with most the cases falling below an O(E) of 3. The results of the present study suggest that the forensic application of biomechanics is potentially fraught with error. We suggest that an Error Odds analysis be incorporated in Forensic Biomechanics as part of the analysis as a form of quality control and as demonstrable evidence of the accuracy of the methodology.

[1]  Roger P. Daniel,et al.  A Biomechanical Analysis of Head, Neck, and Torso Injuries to Child Surrogates Due to Sudden Torso Acceleration , 1984 .

[2]  W. V. van Gorp,et al.  Have we forgotten the base rate problem? Methodological issues in the detection of distortion. , 2000, Archives of clinical neuropsychology : the official journal of the National Academy of Neuropsychologists.

[3]  Philip Dawid,et al.  Statistics on trial , 2005, Medicine, science, and the law.

[4]  Erik G. Takhounts,et al.  DEVELOPMENT OF IMPROVED INJURY CRITERIA FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF ADVANCED AUTOMOTIVE RESTRAINT SYSTEMS - II , 1999 .

[5]  Charles Mock,et al.  Femur fractures in relatively low speed frontal crashes: the possible role of muscle forces. , 2002, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[6]  G. Guyatt,et al.  Users' guides to the medical literature. III. How to use an article about a diagnostic test. B. What are the results and will they help me in caring for my patients? The Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. , 1994, JAMA.

[7]  G. D. Driscoll,et al.  RESPONSES OF ANIMALS EXPOSED TO DEPLOYMENT OF VARIOUS PASSENGER INFLATABLE RESTRAINT SYSTEM CONCEPTS FOR A VARIETY OF COLLISION SEVERITIES AND ANIMAL POSITIONS. SAE PT-31, PASSENGER CAR INFLATABLE RESTRAINT SYSTEMS: A COMPENDIUM OF PUBLISHED SAFETY RESEARCH , 1982 .

[8]  A. Dawid,et al.  Forensic identification with imperfect evidence , 1998 .

[9]  J. Powel,et al.  Validation of a detector of response bias on a forced-choice test of nonverbal ability. , 1994 .

[10]  William C. Thompsont,et al.  The Prosecutor's Fallacy and the Defense Attorney's Fallacy* , 1987 .

[11]  A. Rossignol,et al.  Forensic Epidemiology: a systematic approach to probabilistic determinations in disputed matters. , 2008, Journal of forensic and legal medicine.

[12]  R. Rogers,et al.  Feigning neuropsychological impairment: A critical review of methodological and clinical considerations , 1993 .

[13]  E. Strauss,et al.  Detecting malingering: a survey of experts' practices. , 2004, Archives of clinical neuropsychology : the official journal of the National Academy of Neuropsychologists.

[14]  R Voigt,et al.  BREAKING STRENGTH OF THE HUMAN SKULL VS IMPACT SURFACE CURVATURE , 1973 .

[15]  D Dalmotas,et al.  The effect of mass, stiffness and geometry on injury outcome in side impacts - a parametric study. , 2000, Stapp car crash journal.

[16]  Erik D Power,et al.  Forensic injury biomechanics. , 2007, Annual review of biomedical engineering.

[17]  Kennerly Digges,et al.  Performance of advanced air bags based on data William Lehman Injury Research Center and new NASS PSUs. , 2003, Annual proceedings. Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine.

[18]  G. Guyatt,et al.  Users' Guides to the Medical Literature: III. How to Use an Article About a Diagnostic Test: B. What Are the Results and Will They Help Me In Caring for My Patients? , 1994 .

[19]  Philipp Dahm,et al.  Evidence-Based Surgery Chirurgie factuelle Users ’ guides to the surgical literature : how to use an article about a diagnostic test , 2001 .

[20]  Anders Kullgren,et al.  NEW AIS1 LONG-TERM NECK INJURY CRITERIA CANDIDATES BASED ON REAL FRONTAL CRASH ANALYSIS , 2000 .

[21]  Michael Clarke THE CONTROL OF INSURANCE FRAUDA Comparative View , 1990 .

[22]  W C Hayes,et al.  Disturbance type and gait speed affect fall direction and impact location. , 2001, Journal of biomechanics.

[23]  Michael D Freeman,et al.  Applied forensic epidemiology: the Bayesian evaluation of forensic evidence in vehicular homicide investigation. , 2009, Journal of forensic and legal medicine.

[24]  E. Tangalos,et al.  Fear recognition deficits after focal brain damage , 2000, Neurology.

[25]  G. Taylor,et al.  Incidence of five common fracture types in an institutional epileptic population. , 1996, Injury.

[26]  S. Y. Kao,et al.  Carpal tunnel syndrome as an occupational disease. , 2003, The Journal of the American Board of Family Practice.

[27]  S. F.R.,et al.  An Essay towards solving a Problem in the Doctrine of Chances . By the late Rev . Mr . Bayes , communicated by Mr . Price , in a letter to , 1999 .

[28]  M. Kendall Studies in the History of Probability and Statistics. XXVI , 1971 .

[29]  P. Esposito,et al.  Trampoline injuries. , 2003, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[30]  K. Nakken,et al.  Seizure‐Related Injuries in Multihandicapped Patients with Therapy‐Resistant Epilepsy , 1993, Epilepsia.

[31]  R. Hart,et al.  Oral anticoagulants and intracranial hemorrhage. Facts and hypotheses. , 1995, Stroke.

[32]  J A Newman,et al.  A proposed new biomechanical head injury assessment function - the maximum power index. , 2000, Stapp car crash journal.

[33]  Lisa J. Evered,et al.  Innumeracy: Mathematical Illiteracy and its Consequences. , 1990 .

[34]  T. Bayes An essay towards solving a problem in the doctrine of chances , 2003 .

[35]  S. Spektor,et al.  Delayed Posttraumatic Acute Subdural Hematoma in Elderly Patients on Anticoagulation , 2006, Neurosurgery.

[36]  W. Trueblood,et al.  Malingering and other validity considerations in the neuropsychological evaluation of mild head injury. , 1993, Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology.

[37]  Katherine Kaufer Christoffel,et al.  Injury Epidemiology , 1993 .

[38]  Wai-Ching Leung,et al.  The Prosecutor's Fallacy — A Pitfall in Interpreting Probabilities in Forensic Evidence , 2002, Medicine, science, and the law.

[39]  J. A. Newman,et al.  A new biomechanical assessment of mild traumatic brain injury. Part 2: Results and conclusions , 2000 .