Evaluation of forensic DNA traces when propositions of interest relate to activities: analysis and discussion of recurrent concerns

When forensic scientists evaluate and report on the probative strength of single DNA traces, they commonly rely on only one number, expressing the rarity of the DNA profile in the population of interest. This is so because the focus is on propositions regarding the source of the recovered trace material, such as “the person of interest is the source of the crime stain.” In particular, when the alternative proposition is “an unknown person is the source of the crime stain,” one is directed to think about the rarity of the profile. However, in the era of DNA profiling technology capable of producing results from small quantities of trace material (i.e., non-visible staining) that is subject to easy and ubiquitous modes of transfer, the issue of source is becoming less central, to the point that it is often not contested. There is now a shift from the question “whose DNA is this?” to the question “how did it get there?” As a consequence, recipients of expert information are now very much in need of assistance with the evaluation of the meaning and probative strength of DNA profiling results when the competing propositions of interest refer to different activities. This need is widely demonstrated in day-to-day forensic practice and is also voiced in specialized literature. Yet many forensic scientists remain reluctant to assess their results given propositions that relate to different activities. Some scientists consider evaluations beyond the issue of source as being overly speculative, because of the lack of relevant data and knowledge regarding phenomena and mechanisms of transfer, persistence and background of DNA. Similarly, encouragements to deal with these activity issues, expressed in a recently released European guideline on evaluative reporting (Willis et al., 2015), which highlights the need for rethinking current practice, are sometimes viewed skeptically or are not considered feasible. In this discussion paper, we select and discuss recurrent skeptical views brought to our attention, as well as some of the alternative solutions that have been suggested. We will argue that the way forward is to address now, rather than later, the challenges associated with the evaluation of DNA results (from small quantities of trace material) in light of different activities to prevent them being misrepresented in court

Temporal Dynamics of Decision-Making during Motion Perception in the Visual Cortex

How does the brain make decisions? Speed and accuracy of perceptual decisions covary with certainty in the input, and correlate with the rate of evidence accumulation in parietal and frontal cortical "decision neurons." A biophysically realistic model of interactions within and between Retina/LGN and cortical areas V1, MT, MST, and LIP, gated by basal ganglia, simulates dynamic properties of decision-making in response to ambiguous visual motion stimuli used by Newsome, Shadlen, and colleagues in their neurophysiological experiments. The model clarifies how brain circuits that solve the aperture problem interact with a recurrent competitive network with self-normalizing choice properties to carry out probablistic decisions in real time. Some scientists claim that perception and decision-making can be described using Bayesian inference or related general statistical ideas, that estimate the optimal interpretation of the stimulus given priors and likelihoods. However, such concepts do not propose the neocortical mechanisms that enable perception, and make decisions. The present model explains behavioral and neurophysiological decision-making data without an appeal to Bayesian concepts and, unlike other existing models of these data, generates perceptual representations and choice dynamics in response to the experimental visual stimuli. Quantitative model simulations include the time course of LIP neuronal dynamics, as well as behavioral accuracy and reaction time properties, during both correct and error trials at different levels of input ambiguity in both fixed duration and reaction time tasks. Model MT/MST interactions compute the global direction of random dot motion stimuli, while model LIP computes the stochastic perceptual decision that leads to a saccadic eye movement.National Science Foundation (SBE-0354378, IIS-02-05271); Office of Naval Research (N00014-01-1-0624); National Institutes of Health (R01-DC-02852

Evaluation of Forensic DNA Traces When Propositions of Interest Relate to Activities : Analysis and Discussion of Recurrent Concerns

When forensic scientists evaluate and report on the probative strength of single DNA traces, they commonly rely on only one number, expressing the rarity of the DNA profile in the population of interest. This is so because the focus is on propositions regarding the source of the recovered trace material, such as “the person of interest is the source of the crime stain.” In particular, when the alternative proposition is “an unknown person is the source of the crime stain,” one is directed to think about the rarity of the profile. However, in the era of DNA profiling technology capable of producing results from small quantities of trace material (i.e., non-visible staining) that is subject to easy and ubiquitous modes of transfer, the issue of source is becoming less central, to the point that it is often not contested. There is now a shift from the question “whose DNA is this?” to the question “how did it get there?” As a consequence, recipients of expert information are now very much in need of assistance with the evaluation of the meaning and probative strength of DNA profiling results when the competing propositions of interest refer to different activities. This need is widely demonstrated in day-to-day forensic practice and is also voiced in specialized literature. Yet many forensic scientists remain reluctant to assess their results given propositions that relate to different activities. Some scientists consider evaluations beyond the issue of source as being overly speculative, because of the lack of relevant data and knowledge regarding phenomena and mechanisms of transfer, persistence and background of DNA. Similarly, encouragements to deal with these activity issues, expressed in a recently released European guideline on evaluative reporting (Willis et al., 2015), which highlights the need for rethinking current practice, are sometimes viewed skeptically or are not considered feasible. In this discussion paper, we select and discuss recurrent skeptical views brought to our attention, as well as some of the alternative solutions that have been suggested. We will argue that the way forward is to address now, rather than later, the challenges associated with the evaluation of DNA results (from small quantities of trace material) in light of different activities to prevent them being misrepresented in court

Evaluation of forensic genetics findings given activity level propositions: A review.

The evaluation of results of forensic genetic analyses given activity level propositions is an emerging discipline in forensic genetics. Although it is a topic with a long history, it has never been considered to be such a critically important topic for the field, as today. With the increasing sensitivity of analysis techniques, and advances in data interpretation using probabilistic models ('probabilistic genotyping'), there is an increasing demand on forensic biologists to share specialised knowledge to help recipients of expert information address mode and timing of transfer and persistence of traces in court. Scientists thereby have a critical role in the assessment of their findings in the context of the case. This helps the judiciary with activity level inferences in a balanced, robust and transparent way, when based on (1) proper case assessment and interpretation respecting the hierarchy of propositions (supported by, for example, the use of Bayesian networks as graphical models), (2) use of appropriate data to inform probabilities, and (3) reporting guidelines by international bodies. This critical review of current literature shows that with certain prerequisites for training and quality assurance, there is a solid foundation for evidence interpretation when propositions of interest are at the 'activity level'

Bayesian networks and dissonant items of evidence: A case study

The assessment of different items of evidence is a challenging process in forensic science, particularly when the relevant elements support different inferential directions. In this study, a model is developed to assess the joint probative value of three different analyses related to some biological material retrieved on an object of interest in a criminal case. The study shows the ability of probabilistic graphical models, say Bayesian networks, to deal with complex situations, those that one expects to face in real cases. The results obtained by the model show the importance of a conflict measure as an indication of inconsistencies in the model itself. A contamination event alleged by the defense is also introduced in the model to explain and solve the conflict. The study aims to give an insight in the application of a probabilistic model to real criminal cases

What fingermarks reveal about activities

Fingermarks play important role in forensic science. Based on the ridge detail information present in a fingermark, individualization or exclusion of a donor is possible by comparing a fingermark obtained from a crime scene to a reference fingerprint. In this process, the intrinsic features of a fingermark are used to determine the source of the fingermark. However, in some cases, the source of a fingermark is not argued but the activity that led to the deposition of the fingermark. The question changes from ‘Who left the fingermark?’ to ‘How did the fingermark end up on the surface?’ which requires a different assessment of the findings. The aim of this dissertation is to determine how fingermarks could provide information about activities in a reliable way, in order to be used in the forensic evidence process. To answer this main research question, several studies were conducted which are described in Chapters 2 to 5 of this dissertation. Chapter 2 describes the development of a general framework to evaluate fingermarks given activity level propositions. Relevant variables that function as sources of information when evaluating fingermarks given activity level proposition were identified. Based on these variables, three Bayesian networks were presented for different evaluations of the fingermarks given activity level propositions in a case example. The presented networks function as a general framework for the evaluation of fingermarks given activity level propositions, which can be adapted to specific case circumstances. Chapter 3 shows how the proposed framework in Chapter 2 can be used in casework by showing a case example. In order to use a Bayesian network, probabilities need to be assigned to the Bayesian network. In this study, a case specific experiment with the use of knives was conducted and the resulting data was used to assign probabilities to two Bayesian networks, both focusing on a different use of the experimental data. This study has shown how different uses of the data resulting from a case specific experiment on fingermarks can be used to assign probabilities to Bayesian networks for the evaluation of fingermarks given activity level propositions. In Chapter 4, we focus on the location of fingermarks on an item. In this study, we developed a classification model to evaluate the location of fingermarks given activity level propositions based on an experiment with pillowcases. The results showed that fingermark patterns left on a pillowcase by smothering with a pillow can be well distinguished from fingermark patterns left by changing a pillowcase of a pillow. The result of this study is a model that can be used to study the location of fingermarks on two-dimensional items in general, for which is expected that different activities will lead to different trace locations. Chapter 5 investigates the application of the location model presented in Chapter 4 to a dataset of letters, to study whether the model could also be used to distinguish between fingermark patterns left when writing a letter and fingermark patterns left when reading a letter. Based on the results of this study we conclude that the model proposed in Chapter 4 is indeed applicable to other objects for which it is expected that different activities lead to different fingermark locations, given the condition that the training set is representative for the object to be tested with regards to the size of the object and the activity that was carried out with the object. This dissertation supports the view that fingermarks contain valuable information about the activity that caused the deposition of the fingermarks and provides the forensic community with reliable methods that can be used when evaluating fingermarks given activity level propositions

A logical framework for forensic DNA interpretation

The forensic community has devoted much effort over the last decades to the development of a logical framework for forensic interpretation, which is essential for the safe administration of justice. We review the research and guidelines that have been published and provide examples of how to implement them in casework. After a discussion on uncertainty in the criminal trial and the roles that the DNA scientist may take, we present the principles of interpretation for evaluative reporting. We show how their application helps to avoid a common fallacy and present strategies that DNA scientists can apply so that they do not transpose the conditional. We then discuss the hierarchy of propositions and explain why it is considered a fundamental concept for the evaluation of biological results and the differences between assessing results given propositions that are at the source level or the activity level. We show the importance of pre-assessment, especially when the questions relate to the alleged activities, and when transfer and persistence need to be considered by the scientists to guide the court. We conclude with a discussion on statement writing and testimony. This provides guidance on how DNA scientists can report in a balanced, transparent, and logical way