Scientific Evidence in Europe -- Admissibility, Evaluation and Equality of Arms

This study was commissioned by the European Committee on Crime Problems at the Council of Europe to describe and discuss the standards used to asses the admissibility and appraisal of scientific evidence in various member countries. After documenting cases in which faulty forensic evidence seems to have played a critical role, the authors describe the legal foundations of the issues of admissibility and assessment of the probative value in the field of scientific evidence, contrasting criminal justice systems of accusatorial and inquisitorial tradition and the various risks that they pose in terms of equality of arms. Special attention is given to communication issues between lawyers and scientific experts. The authors eventually investigate possible ways of improving the system. Among these mechanisms, emphasis is put on the adoption of a common terminology for expressing the weight of evidence. It is also proposed to adopt an harmonized interpretation framework among forensic experts rooted in good practices of logical inference.The foreword was authored by D. Michael Risinger, Seton Hall University School of La

Overview and Meaning of Identification/Individualization

This article presents two common accounts of the question of inference of source in forensic science. The first, the classic view, leads to direct opinions about source propositions, either categorically or in terms of graded conclusions. The second account focuses on assessing the value of the findings with respect to competing source propositions. It is based on probability theory and represents a preliminary to the most recent, decision-theoretic conceptualization of individualization. This account allows one to critically expose and resolve shortcomings, limitations and scientific drawbacks of the classic view, and to clarify the distinct duties and roles of experts and fact finders

Functionalised silicon oxide nanoparticles for fingermark detection

Over the past decade, the use of nanotechnology for fingermark detection has been attracting a lot of attention. A substantial number of nanoparticle types has thus been studied and applied with varying success. However, despite all efforts, few publications present clear supporting evidence of their superiority over standard and commonly used techniques. This paper focuses on a rarely studied type of nanoparticles that regroups all desired properties for effective fingermark detection: silicon oxide. These nanoparticles offer optical and surface properties that can be tuned to provide optimal detection. This study explores their potential as a new method for fingermark detection. Detection conditions, outer functionalisations and optical properties were optimised and a first evaluation of the technique is presented. Dye-doped silicon oxide nanoparticles were assessed against a one-step luminescent cyanoacrylate. Both techniques were compared on natural fingermarks from three donors collected on four different non-porous substrates. On average, the two techniques performed similarly but silicon oxide detected marks with a better homogeneity and was less affected by donor inter-variability. The technique remains to be further optimised and yet silicon oxide nanoparticles already show great promises for effective fingermark detection

Interpol review of fingermarks and other body impressions 2016–2019

This review paper covers the forensic-relevant literature in fingerprint and bodily impression sciences from 2016 to 2019 as a part of the 19th Interpol International Forensic Science Managers Symposium. The review papers are also available at the Interpol website at: https://www.interpol.int/content/download/ 14458/file/Interpol%20 Review%20 Papers%202019. pdf

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

A template for constructing Bayesian networks in forensic biology cases when considering activity level propositions

The hierarchy of propositions has been accepted amongst the forensic science community for some time. It is also accepted that the higher up the hierarchy the propositions are, against which the scientist are competent to evaluate their results, the more directly useful the testimony will be to the court. Because each case represents a unique set of circumstances and findings, it is difficult to come up with a standard structure for evaluation. One common tool that assists in this task is Bayesian networks (BNs). There is much diversity in the way that BN can be constructed. In this work, we develop a template for BN construction that allows sufficient flexibility to address most cases, but enough commonality and structure that the flow of information in the BN is readily recognised at a glance. We provide seven steps that can be used to construct BNs within this structure and demonstrate how they can be applied, using a case example