Formulation and communication of evaluative forensic science expert opinion-A GHEP-ISFG contribution to the establishment of standards.

Communicating and interpreting genetic evidence in the administration of justice is currently a matter of great concern, due to the theoretical and technical complexity of the evaluative reporting and large difference in expertise between forensic experts and law professionals. A large number of initiatives have been taken trying to bridge this gap, contributing to the education of both parties. Results however have not been very encouraging, as most of these initiatives try to cope globally with the problem, addressing simultaneously theoretical and technical approaches which are in a quite heterogeneous state of development and validation. In consequence, the extension and complexity of the resulting documents disheartens their study by professionals (both jurists and geneticists) and makes a consensus very hard to reach even among the genetic experts' community. Here we propose a 'back-to-basics', example-driven approach, in which a model report for the two most common situations faced by forensic laboratories is presented. We do hope that this strategy will provide a solid basis for a stepwise generalisation.

[1]  R. J. Mitchell,et al.  Forensic trace DNA: a review , 2010, Investigative Genetics.

[2]  H. Elffers,et al.  Understanding of forensic expert reports by judges, defense lawyers and forensic professionals , 2012 .

[3]  Pedro V. Silva,et al.  General Derivation of the Sets of Pedigrees with the Same Kinship Coefficients , 2010, Human Heredity.

[4]  D. Comas,et al.  2006 GEP-ISFG collaborative exercise on mtDNA: reflections about interpretation, artefacts, and DNA mixtures. , 2008, Forensic science international. Genetics.

[5]  C. Aitken,et al.  Fundamentals of probability and statistical evidence in criminal proceedings , 2010 .

[6]  N. Pinto,et al.  X-chromosome markers in kinship testing: a generalisation of the IBD approach identifying situations where their contribution is crucial. , 2011, Forensic science international. Genetics.

[7]  A. Amorim A cautionary note on the evaluation of genetic evidence from uniparentally transmitted markers. , 2008, Forensic science international. Genetics.

[8]  Joseph L. Gastwirth,et al.  Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence , 1997 .

[9]  T. Egeland,et al.  Using X-chromosomal markers in relationship testing: calculation of likelihood ratios taking both linkage and linkage disequilibrium into account. , 2011, Forensic science international. Genetics.

[10]  D. Comas,et al.  GHEP-ISFG proficiency test 2011: Paper challenge on evaluation of mitochondrial DNA results , 2011 .

[11]  Natasha Gilbert,et al.  Science in court: DNA's identity crisis , 2010, Nature.

[12]  K. Kirkbride,et al.  The readability of expert reports for non-scientist report-users: reports of DNA analysis. , 2014, Forensic science international.

[13]  A. Amorim Opening the DNA black box: demythologizing forensic genetics , 2012 .

[14]  Niels Morling,et al.  ISFG: Recommendations on biostatistics in paternity testing. , 2007, Forensic science international. Genetics.

[15]  L. Moxey,et al.  Perception problems of the verbal scale. , 2014, Science & justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society.

[16]  Peter Gill,et al.  Genotyping and interpretation of STR-DNA: Low-template, mixtures and database matches-Twenty years of research and development. , 2015, Forensic science international. Genetics.

[17]  Joëlle Vuille,et al.  Whose DNA is this? How relevant a question? (a note for forensic scientists). , 2013, Forensic science international. Genetics.

[18]  J S Buckleton,et al.  The interpretation of lineage markers in forensic DNA testing. , 2011, Forensic science international. Genetics.

[19]  Aravinda Chakravarti,et al.  No fallacies in the formulation of the paternity index. , 1986 .

[20]  B Martínez-Jarreta,et al.  GHEP-ISFG collaborative exercise on mixture profiles of autosomal STRs (GHEP-MIX01, GHEP-MIX02 and GHEP-MIX03): results and evaluation. , 2014, Forensic science international. Genetics.