The logical foundations of forensic science: towards reliable knowledge

The generation of observations is a technical process and the advances that have been made in forensic science techniques over the last 50 years have been staggering. But science is about reasoning—about making sense from observations. For the forensic scientist, this is the challenge of interpreting a pattern of observations within the context of a legal trial. Here too, there have been major advances over recent years and there is a broad consensus among serious thinkers, both scientific and legal, that the logical framework is furnished by Bayesian inference (Aitken et al. Fundamentals of Probability and Statistical Evidence in Criminal Proceedings). This paper shows how the paradigm has matured, centred on the notion of the balanced scientist. Progress through the courts has not been always smooth and difficulties arising from recent judgments are discussed. Nevertheless, the future holds exciting prospects, in particular the opportunities for managing and calibrating the knowledge of the forensic scientists who assign the probabilities that are at the foundation of logical inference in the courtroom.

[1]  Colin Aitken,et al.  Bayesian Networks for Probabilistic Inference and Decision Analysis in Forensic Science , 2014 .

[2]  D. M. Cleal Knowledge-based systems , 1988 .

[3]  Christophe Champod Fingerprint identification: advances since the 2009 National Research Council report , 2015, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[4]  Michael O. Finkelstein,et al.  A Bayesian Approach to Identification Evidence , 1970 .

[5]  Itiel E Dror,et al.  Cognitive neuroscience in forensic science: understanding and utilizing the human element , 2015, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[6]  Niko Brümmer,et al.  Application-independent evaluation of speaker detection , 2006, Comput. Speech Lang..

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

[8]  Cedric Neumann,et al.  Quantifying the weight of evidence from a forensic fingerprint comparison: a new paradigm , 2012 .

[9]  K. Walsh,et al.  Knowledge-based systems , 1991 .

[10]  Christophe Champod,et al.  Forerunners of Bayesianism in Early Forensic Science. , 1999 .

[11]  Grzegorz Zadora,et al.  Information‐Theoretical Assessment of the Performance of Likelihood Ratio Computation Methods , 2013, Journal of forensic sciences.

[12]  Bryan Found,et al.  The Initial Profiling Trial of a Program to Characterize Forensic Handwriting Examiners' Skill , 2003 .

[13]  Jeremy T. Wright,et al.  The controlled trial and the advance of reliable knowledge , 1983 .

[14]  I. Evett,et al.  Evidence evaluation: a response to the court of appeal judgment in R v T. , 2011, Science & justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society.

[15]  Luuk J. Spreeuwers,et al.  Effect of calibration data on forensic likelihood ratio from a face recognition system , 2013, 2013 IEEE Sixth International Conference on Biometrics: Theory, Applications and Systems (BTAS).