tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5354567765897135804.comments2023-03-16T23:35:17.345-04:00Forensic Science, Statistics & the LawDH Kayehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09329862957840849989noreply@blogger.comBlogger112125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5354567765897135804.post-57274437055029416212022-05-26T10:08:27.310-04:002022-05-26T10:08:27.310-04:00I received a comment noting that the issue of the ...I received a comment noting that the issue of the accuracy of computed likelihood ratios is addressed in the literature on calibration and noting the following references:<br />* Morrison G.S., Enzinger E., Hughes V., Jessen M., Meuwly D., Neumann C., Planting S., Thompson W.C., van der Vloed D., Ypma R.J.F., Zhang C., Anonymous A., Anonymous B. (2021). Consensus on validation of forensic voice comparison. Science & Justice, 61, 229–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2021.02.002;<br />* Morrison G.S. (2021). In the context of forensic casework, are there meaningful metrics of the degree of calibration? Forensic Science International: Synergy, 3, article 100157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2021.100157; <br />* a 2021 Symposium on calibration at https://calibration-and-validation.forensic-data-science.net/;<br />* Weber P., Enzinger E., Labrador B., Lozano-Díez A., Ramos D., González-Rodríguez J., Morrison G.S. (2022). Validation of the alpha version of the E3 Forensic Speech Science System (E3FS3) core software tools. Forensic Science International: Synergy, 4, article 100223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2022.100223 (using calibration); and * Basu N., Bolton-King R.S., Morrison G.S. (2022). Forensic comparison of fired cartridge cases: Feature-extraction methods for feature-based calculation of likelihood ratios. Forensic Science International: Synergy, 5, article 100272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2022.100272 (Preprint at https://firearms.forensic-data-science.net/) (using calibration).DH Kayehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09329862957840849989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5354567765897135804.post-70278347196424311002022-02-04T07:37:46.720-05:002022-02-04T07:37:46.720-05:00version 4 is the correct.version 4 is the correct.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04716020568228768889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5354567765897135804.post-15088525952526900962020-10-08T13:35:27.895-04:002020-10-08T13:35:27.895-04:00Thank you, this is wonderfully useful.
-cpsThank you, this is wonderfully useful.<br /><br />-cpsChris Saundershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14354023748033422514noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5354567765897135804.post-56354522247697466312020-04-13T19:27:30.226-04:002020-04-13T19:27:30.226-04:00Thanks. The article is at https://pubs.rsna.org/do...Thanks. The article is at https://pubs.rsna.org/doi/full/10.1148/radiol.2020200642. The full citation is Ai T, Yang Z, Hou H, Zhan C, Chen C, Lv W, Tao Q, Sun Z, Xia L. Correlation of Chest CT and RT-PCR Testing in Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in China: A Report of 1014 Cases. Radiology 2020:200642. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2020200642. For more references on this point, see the consensus statement at https://pubs.rsna.org/doi/10.1148/radiol.2020201365. This group notes that "Early detection and containment of infection caused by the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV2 has been hindered by the need to develop, mass produce, and widely disseminate the required molecular diagnostic test, a real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assay. Early reports of test performance in the Wuhan outbreak showed variable sensitivities ranging from 37% to 71% (4, 5). While laboratory-based performance evaluations of RT-PCR test show high analytical sensitivity and near-perfect specificity with no misidentification of other coronaviruses or common respiratory pathogens, test sensitivity in clinical practice may be adversely affected by a number of variables including: adequacy of specimen, specimen type, specimen handling, and stage of infection when the specimen is acquired (CDC guidelines for in-vitro diagnostics) (6, 7). False negative RT-PCR tests have been reported in patients with CT findings of COVID-19 who were eventually tested positive with serial sampling (8)."DH Kayehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09329862957840849989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5354567765897135804.post-73111116710717561832020-04-13T17:04:21.809-04:002020-04-13T17:04:21.809-04:00Thank you for this nice piece of work.
May I as...Thank you for this nice piece of work.<br /> May I ask where the "Ai et al." reference may be found? I did not see it in your references.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04083407686610074872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5354567765897135804.post-84723137864324179772019-12-10T02:33:05.376-05:002019-12-10T02:33:05.376-05:00“There has to be some ethical and regulatory overs...“There has to be some ethical and regulatory oversight of law enforcement use of genealogy databases,’’ said Debbie Kennett, a genealogist and author. “GEDmatch should not be forced into the position of making difficult ethical decisions which have implications for millions of people.’<br /><br />Regards,<br /><br /><a href="https://portermalouf.com" rel="nofollow"> Porter & Malouf P.A. </a>Porter Maloufhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10899121118655839720noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5354567765897135804.post-85537566891536258882019-11-11T12:38:11.721-05:002019-11-11T12:38:11.721-05:00I am grateful to Mr. Hunt for taking the time to c...I am grateful to Mr. Hunt for taking the time to clarify his remarks in the webinar. The small part of his lecture discussed above is reproduced in full at https://for-sci-law.blogspot.com/2019/11/more-on-rule-704-and-source-attribution.html. That posting (11/11/19) explains in more detail why it would be a mistake to believe that Rule 704 "affirmatively allows" source attribution. In a few words, Rule 704(a) is agnostic as to admissibility. Sherwood and other cases are not to the contrary. The new posting also shows that the discussions of the role of experts in the documents produced by scientists and statisticians in countries across the world cannot be considered misleading because they do not discuss the US Federal Rule of Evidence 704(a) or the defunct common-law rule limiting "ultimate issue" testimony.DH Kayehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09329862957840849989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5354567765897135804.post-70181823061034879482019-08-20T12:12:55.745-04:002019-08-20T12:12:55.745-04:00From an investigator's point of view, having h...From an investigator's point of view, having handled several <a href="https://distinctionessays.com/crime-scene-evidence-analysis-report/" rel="nofollow">crime scene analysis</a>, I feel that expanding the DNA database is one of the best decisions USA has made. I would actually pray for a further broadening. Crime starts small and graduatesJavockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02645426868807410061noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5354567765897135804.post-32405020556486799522019-07-21T14:45:31.837-04:002019-07-21T14:45:31.837-04:00Professor Kaye,
My comments about FRE 704 were di...Professor Kaye,<br /><br />My comments about FRE 704 were directed to the claim of ‘role assignment’ by the authors of the cited sources. The documents I cited (ENFSI, Evett, NIFS, AFSP, NCFS, ASA) make statements such as ‘the role of the expert is to comment on the probability of their findings, given these propositions and not on the propositions themselves.’ (NIFS). <br /><br />I simply noted that this purported assignment of ‘roles’ is more limited than that which is permitted by the Federal Rules of Evidence. None of these documents concede (or even acknowledge) that the Federal Rules (and most state rules of evidence) affirmatively allow an expert to offer an opinion about a proposition, rather than limiting that opinion to the relative strength of the evidence in support of competing propositions. <br /><br />Omitting this information may mislead some to believe that the ‘role’ assigned by these documents to an expert is instead assigned by legal rules, rather than a ‘best practices’ world view. I never said or implied that Rule 704 ‘stands in the way’ of an expert’s provision of a more limited opinion about the strength of the evidence relative to competing propositions. <br /><br />In addition, your blog states that ‘the identity of the source of a trace is not necessarily an ultimate issue.’ As evidence for that assertion, you used my latent print example, claiming that ‘the traditional opinion that a named individual is the source of a print is not an opinion on an ultimate issue.’ <br /><br />Your claim is directly contrary to the contents of the judicial opinion I cited in the questioned slide, which states in full: ‘[Defendant] . . . contends that the district court erred in allowing the expert to specifically testify that he had no doubt that the prints on the parking stub were [Defendant’s] because the expert was testifying to the "ultimate issue’ of whether it was Sherwood's print. This argument fails in light of Fed. R. Evid. 704, which permits expert testimony on the ultimate issue in a case.” United States v. Sherwood, 98 F.3d 402, 408 (9th Cir. 1996). <br /><br />In Sherwood, the ultimate issue was not described as a connection between the latent print and activity-level behavior; rather, it was the expert’s testimony about the source of that print. Your description of an ultimate issue as limited to one in which (using your example), ‘the murder defendant is the one who pulled the trigger’ is a narrower description of the types of factual assertions entailed by Rule 704 than those described throughout case law. As such, your explanation of the Rule is not entirely correct. <br /><br />For other examples of courts describing identification testimony as ‘ultimate’ in nature, see U.S. v. Rose, 731 F.2d 1337, 1346-47 (print match to shoe) United States v. Bice-Bey, 701 F.2d 1086 (4th Cir. 1883) (voice identification); United States v. Sellers, 566 F.2d 884 (4th Cir. 1977) (identification of suspect in a picture); United States v. Couser, 15 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. (CBC) 837 (4th Cir. Apr. 5, 1984) (comparison of suspect’s features to photograph). These cases clearly demonstrate that source identification testimony constitutes an opinion that embraces an ‘ultimate’ fact. <br /><br />I don’t disagree that Rule 704 ‘does not counsel in favor’ of admitting expert opinion on an ultimate issue. I never said or implied anything or the sort.<br /><br /> In conclusion, to the extent there is any ‘tension’ or ‘inconsistency’ between Rule 704 and the noted references, it was created by the referenced documents’ omission of a discipline-specific basis for their claim that ‘the role of the expert is to comment on the probability of their findings, given these propositions and not on the propositions themselves.’ Each of the cited sources fail to make it clear that this limited ‘role’ is self-imposed, not legal in nature. That was the point of my observation.<br /><br />Thanks for your participation in the webinar series and for your interest in my talk.<br /><br />Ted R. Hunt<br />Senior Advisor on Forensic Science<br />U.S. Department of Justice<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04869228835281008889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5354567765897135804.post-31573845989036121602018-12-07T19:20:57.184-05:002018-12-07T19:20:57.184-05:00Instead of focusing broadly on "the report&qu...Instead of focusing broadly on "the report" as a basis for confrontation clause analysis, it would behoove SCOTUS to parse the contents of any given report into testimonial and nontestimonial components. E.g., the original analyst's opinion/conclusion will always be testimonial (and should be redacted if the report is offered into evidence), but the raw data, instrument output, photographs, measurements, etc., memorialized in the report should not be considered testimonial. They should be fair game for the expert on the witness stand to rely upon in rendering an independent opinion. Granted, the fact that the testifying expert did not generate those data may be explored on cross examination and may result in the jury according less weight to the opinion, but it does not make for a violation of the Sixth Amendment. See Dungo and Lopez cases from the California Supreme Court in 2012. Together, these provide a cogent roadmap for SCOTUS. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5354567765897135804.post-10344357026366474282018-03-09T07:03:54.336-05:002018-03-09T07:03:54.336-05:00I appreciate your work :)I appreciate your work :)PGnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5354567765897135804.post-5547710565998401422018-03-08T09:23:53.601-05:002018-03-08T09:23:53.601-05:00Quite so. I have made this correction in the note....Quite so. I have made this correction in the note. Thanks!DH Kayehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09329862957840849989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5354567765897135804.post-14489656335293083592018-03-08T03:36:19.818-05:002018-03-08T03:36:19.818-05:00Hi Prof Kaye. In your note #2, should it not read:...Hi Prof Kaye. In your note #2, should it not read: Before learning the card's color, the probability it was a DIAMOND was 1/4?PGnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5354567765897135804.post-63510711183975141772017-10-28T15:07:48.857-04:002017-10-28T15:07:48.857-04:00An article on another Parabon case (with comments ...An article on another Parabon case (with comments from skeptics) is Ashley Southall, Using DNA to Sketch What Victims Look Like; Some Call It Science Fiction, N.Y. Times, Oct. 19, 2017, at A23, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/19/nyregion/dna-phenotyping-new-york-police.html. It seems that Parabon has yet to publish a study that shows how accurate its "snapshots" are.DH Kayehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09329862957840849989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5354567765897135804.post-83541541064064287592017-01-03T09:02:32.687-05:002017-01-03T09:02:32.687-05:00"One would hope that many laboratories alread..."One would hope that many laboratories already employ this strategy for managing unwanted sources of possible cognitive bias."<br /><br />The Dallas County Crime Lab (aka SWIFS)disregarded "blind testing" because they believed confirmation bias was not a possibility in their lab.<br /><br />https://sliterchewspens.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/slide239.jpg<br /><br />And because they didn't incorporate "blind testing", this happened...<br /><br />http://www.fsc.texas.gov/blog/2016-04-19/fsc-releases-report-swifs-firearmtool-mark-investigation-complaint-filed-attorney<br /><br />Unfortunately, after this abomination there was no retro-assessment of past cases at SWIFS where confirmation bias overshadowed their forensic conclusions. The SWIFS crime lab has disregarded this well-studied problem of confirmation bias for decades.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5354567765897135804.post-84888257030462352652016-12-20T21:08:36.872-05:002016-12-20T21:08:36.872-05:00Oh my God thank you so much for this post. I am go...Oh my God thank you so much for this post. I am going insane with the mass of invitations I am getting from BIT. I have tried all sorts of approaches and no results, the emails keep coming... at least it is soothing to know they do this with many other people... We just need to stop them somehow. Ana Ritahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13011422426986331659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5354567765897135804.post-2581871987498643352016-12-07T15:51:59.285-05:002016-12-07T15:51:59.285-05:00You are absolutely right. I'll revise the stat...You are absolutely right. I'll revise the statement of facts. The problem with the presentation of the one likelihood but not the other is the same.DH Kayehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09329862957840849989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5354567765897135804.post-30519328521617007492016-12-07T13:48:47.433-05:002016-12-07T13:48:47.433-05:00Professor Kaye -- I don't know if this would c...Professor Kaye -- I don't know if this would change your analysis, but the sweatshirt in question was worn by the defendant, not his wife. From the Appellate Division, Third Department opinion:<br /><br />"Analysis on a blood stain on the sweatshirt that defendant wore on the morning that the victim disappeared concluded that defendant was the major contributor of the blood and that the victim could not be excluded as the minor contributor to that blood stain. Furthermore, a forensic expert testified that it was 1.661 quadrillion times more likely that the blood sample from the sweatshirt contained a combination of defendant's and the victim's blood than if two randomly selected individuals were the donors."<br />https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8051727555341329307Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5354567765897135804.post-44921398033717562662016-09-01T22:15:15.637-04:002016-09-01T22:15:15.637-04:00I am not sure what this means. The general members...I am not sure what this means. The general membership of OSAC did not establish the decision-making process. As I understand it, NIST created an entity with many committees to be governed by a much smaller Forensic Science Standards Board. The board contains almost no "measurement scientists (metrologists?) and statisticians" who could be on an interim "Technical Merit Resource Committee."DH Kayehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09329862957840849989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5354567765897135804.post-28072046043788635972016-08-29T16:03:50.034-04:002016-08-29T16:03:50.034-04:00This is a blanket condemnation of NIST and OSAC wh...This is a blanket condemnation of NIST and OSAC whose members should have made such a decision in 2013; a decision a high school general science student could have made. None of their involved members should be members of the new group.John Kellyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16747124935777009256noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5354567765897135804.post-60017959541209281872016-08-26T17:35:11.277-04:002016-08-26T17:35:11.277-04:00In drug testing, for example, the current technolo... In drug testing, for example, the current technology makes it possible for experts to determine the chemical composition of a controlled substance with a high degree of certainty and with very little human interpretation.<br /><br />Excuse me: ASTM E2329-14 and SWGDRUG Recommendations: "It is expected that in the absence of unforeseen error, an appropriate analytical scheme effectively results in no uncertainty in reported identifications."John Kellyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16747124935777009256noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5354567765897135804.post-30931127924342555092016-07-28T12:15:27.786-04:002016-07-28T12:15:27.786-04:00In the Scott case, the tray was rotated 180 degree...In the Scott case, the tray was rotated 180 degrees when it was mistakenly reused on the next shift. This rotation may have helped people to diagnose the problem IIUC, and someone else's, not Scott's, DNA was found in the control. It is disconcerting that positive results in the negative controls are ignored (Andrew Scott), denied (Gary Letterman), or disregarded (Stephen Avery). As William Thompson has helped to publicize, they are sometimes also the subject of active misconduct on the part of an unscrupulous technician.Chris Halkideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14933976220776524122noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5354567765897135804.post-53914169815044456562016-07-26T09:06:19.506-04:002016-07-26T09:06:19.506-04:00"or just a second, presumptive test, if based..."or just a second, presumptive test, if based on “different chemical principles” and “not subject to the same limitations.” (Or maybe a second and a third screening test are required; it is hard to tell from the document.)"<br />One might try to argue that if one follows a positive luminol result by a positive tetramethylbenzidine (TMB) result, that this would be a confirmatory test for blood. Luminol is a chemiluminescent test, and TMB is a color-change test. And it is common practice to follow up a luminol or fluorescein test with TMB or a Kastle-Meyer (K-M) test. However, the conclusion that a positive result with a TMB or K-M confirms the existence of blood would be a fallacious argument. All four of these tests are really tests for peroxidase activity and give some of the same false positives. A great deal stands or falls on what constitutes a different chemical principle. It is my understanding that some labs have stopped performing true confirmatory tests, instead moving from the color-change tests on to DNA profiling. This is a step backward.<br />Chris Halkideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14933976220776524122noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5354567765897135804.post-78855858035380113672016-07-23T09:51:14.537-04:002016-07-23T09:51:14.537-04:00Thank you for posting this and the the supporting ...Thank you for posting this and the the supporting document. I have several concerns. One, it is difficult for me to see how soybean root (for example) would not test positive by the Takayama test: leghemoglobin has a heme prosthetic group, just as hemoglobin does; the only doubt revolves around the concentration of this protein. Two, this document does not discuss modern confirmatory methods of testing for blood, such as HemaTrace and the RSID test for glycophorin. The reported sensitivities of HemaTrace vary widely, but some of the values compare with the presumptive tests. Three, it is odd that saliva is not mentioned at all.Chris Halkideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14933976220776524122noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5354567765897135804.post-69417532405576480252016-07-22T17:20:21.654-04:002016-07-22T17:20:21.654-04:00post script, I see that the Dror-Hampikian study i...post script, I see that the Dror-Hampikian study is well known to you already.Chris Halkideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14933976220776524122noreply@blogger.com