The development of a program for characterizing forensic handwriting examiners’ expertise : Signature examination pilot study

Criticisms levelled at forensic handwriting examina tion expertise have focused on the clear lack of validation evidence offered to substantiate the claims of its practitioners. In general, expertise can be thought of as a skill that is more developed in the specialist than in the lay person. This paper out lines the shift in the process for delineating, and in time articulating, the nature of the expertise claimed within the Australian and New Zealand government and police document examination communities. A pilot study is presented where we com pared the opinions regarding the authorship of one hundred and fifty questioned signatures between seven government trained document examiners and eight lay persons. It was found that the government trained document examiners were statistically better at accurately determining the authorship of questioned signatures than were the lay group

Peer review in forensic science

Peer review features prominently in the forensic sciences. Drawing on recent research and studies, this article examines different types of peer review, specifically: editorial peer review; peer review by the scientific community; technical and administrative review; and verification (and replication). The article reviews the different meanings of these quite disparate activities and their utility in relation to enhancing performance and reducing error. It explains how forensic practitioners should approach and use peer review, as well as how it should be described in expert reports and oral testimony. While peer review has considerable potential, and is a key component of modern quality management systems, its actual value in most forensic science settings has yet to be determined. In consequence, forensic practitioners should reflect on why they use specific review procedures and endeavour to make their actual practices and their potential value transparent to consumers; whether investigators, lawyers, jurors or judges. Claims that review increases the validity of a scientific technique or accuracy of opinions within a particular case should be avoided until empirical evidence is available to support such assertions

Forensic science evidence: Naive estimates of false positive error rates and reliability

We do not know how often false positive reports are made in a range of forensic science disciplines. In the absence of this information it is important to understand the naive beliefs held by potential jurors about forensic science evidence reliability. It is these beliefs that will shape evaluations at trial. This descriptive study adds to our knowledge about naive beliefs by: 1) measuring jury-eligible (lay) perceptions of reliability for the largest range of forensic science disciplines to date, over three waves of data collection between 2011 and 2016 (n = 674); 2) calibrating reliability ratings with false positive report estimates; and 3) comparing lay reliability estimates with those of an opportunity sample of forensic practitioners (n = 53). Overall the data suggest that both jury-eligible participants and practitioners consider forensic evidence highly reliable. When compared to best or plausible estimates of reliability and error in the forensic sciences these views appear to overestimate reliability and underestimate the frequency of false positive errors. This result highlights the importance of collecting and disseminating empirically derived estimates of false positive error rates to ensure that practitioners and potential jurors have a realistic impression of the value of forensic science evidence

A Round Table Discussion on forensic science in Australia.

This manuscript is an edited transcript of a round table discussion held during the Australian New Zealand Forensic Science Society International Symposium held in Sydney in 2010. The discussants covered a variety of topics, including the management of science, the handling of quality issues, and the report on forensic science from the U.S. National Academies of Science National Research Council. This discussion offers a frank account of the current state of Australian forensic service providers. These views are then considered in the context of recent events unfolding in the United Kingdom and in a broader international context. It poses the question, are there lessons to be learned from the Australian experience that would have relevance to other parts of the world

Eye movement evaluation of signature forgeries: Insights to forensic expert evidence

To find solutions to complex problems often requires the networking of experts from a variety of disciplines. This can be especially relevant in the application of eye movement studies to understand the complex ways in which humans make decisions for non-trivial tasks. For example, the use of eye movement investigations to understand how experienced forensic officers make decisions whilst evaluating case evidence has important implications for legal proceedings (Dyer et al. 2006, 2008; Merlino et al. 2008a). To conduct these types of studies firstly requires detailed knowledge of the legal context for which quality empirical evidence is required (Merlino et al. 2008b) and secondly how experiments need to be designed to model the real-world working environment of a forensic officer. By utilising the correct context setting information to design eye movement studies, it is possible to collect high-quality data to answer specific questions pertinent to certain disciplines. Below we discuss the value of multidisciplinary inputs for understanding FDE visual processing as a model for how eye movement studies can provide high value empirical data on human visual expertise

Model forensic science

This article provides an explanation of the duties and responsibilities owed by forensic practitioners (and other expert witnesses) when preparing for and presenting evidence in criminal proceedings. It is written in the shadow of reports by the National Academy of Sciences (US), the National Institute of Standards and Technology (US), the Scottish Fingerprint Inquiry and a recent publication entitled ‘How to cross-examine forensic scientists: A guide for Lawyers’. The article examines potential responses to questions focused on the need for scientific research, validation, uncertainties, limitations and error, contextual bias and the way expert opinions are expressed in reports and oral testimony. Responses and the discussion is developed around thematics such as disclosure, transparency, epistemic modesty and impartiality derived from modern admissibility and procedure rules, codes of conduct, ethical and professional responsibilities and employment contracts. The article explains why forensic practitioners must respond to the rules and expectations of adversarial legal institutions. Simultaneously, in line with accusatorial principles, it suggests that forensic practitioners employed by the state ought to conduct themselves as model forensic scientists

Model forensic science

This article provides an explanation of the duties and responsibilities owed by forensic practitioners (and other expert witnesses) when preparing for and presenting evidence in criminal proceedings. It is written in the shadow of reports by the National Academy of Sciences (US), the National Institute of Standards and Technology (US), the Scottish Fingerprint Inquiry and a recent publication entitled ‘How to cross-examine forensic scientists: A guide for Lawyers’. The article examines potential responses to questions focused on the need for scientific research, validation, uncertainties, limitations and error, contextual bias and the way expert opinions are expressed in reports and oral testimony. Responses and the discussion is developed around thematics such as disclosure, transparency, epistemic modesty and impartiality derived from modern admissibility and procedure rules, codes of conduct, ethical and professional responsibilities and employment contracts. The article explains why forensic practitioners must respond to the rules and expectations of adversarial legal institutions. Simultaneously, in line with accusatorial principles, it suggests that forensic practitioners employed by the state ought to conduct themselves as model forensic scientists