CSFS Document Section Position on the Logical Approach to Evidence Evaluation and Corresponding Wording of Conclusions

References

• Taroni F, Champod C, Margot P. Forerunners of Bayesianism in early forensic science. Jurimetrics J. 1998;38:183–200.
   Google Scholar
• Dick AM. Qualified opinions in handwriting examination. Paper presented at: 1964 ASQDE meeting, Denver CO.
   Google Scholar
• Cole A. The search for certainty and the uses of probability. J Forensic Sci. 1980;25(4):826–833.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cole A. “Classification of Questioned Documents Opinions and Methods and Procedures for Reports”, Memorandum of 23 November 1966, Alwyn Cole, Chief Document Analyst, Office of Examiner of Questioned Documents, Treasury Department. Sample Form TUS 912; EQD-26 Addenda to Report from Office of Examiner of Questioned Documents.
   Google Scholar
• McAlexander TV. The meaning of handwriting opinion. J Police Sci Adm. 1974;5(1):43–47.
   Google Scholar
• McAlexander TV. Layman’s guide to handwriting opinion terminology. Police Chief. 1978;45(5):68–72
   Google Scholar
• Ellen DM. The expression of conclusions in handwriting examination. Can Soc For Sci J. 1979;12(3):117–120.
   Google Scholar
• Leung SC, Cheung YL. On opinion. Paper presented at 1988 ASQDE meeting, Aurora CO.
   Google Scholar
• McAlexander TV. Properties and pitfalls of language in expressing handwriting opinions. Paper presented at 1981 International Association of Forensic Sciences (IAFS) meeting, Bergen Norway.
   Google Scholar
• McAlexander TV. Explaining qualified handwriting opinion to the jury. Paper presented at 1993 American Academy of Forensic Sciences Meeting, Boston, MA
   Google Scholar
• Köller N, Niessen K, Riess M, Sadorf E. Probability conclusions in expert opinions on handwriting. Substantiation and standardization of probability statements in expert opinions. München: Luchterhand; 2004.
   Google Scholar
• Evett IW. Expert evidence and forensic misconceptions of the nature of exact science. Sci Justice. 1996; 36:118–122
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cook R, Evett IW, Jackson G, Jones PJ, Lambert JA. A model for case assessment and interpretation, Sci Justice. 1998;38(3):151–156.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cook R, Evett IW, Jackson G, Jones PJ, Lambert JA. A hierarchy of propositions: deciding which level to address in casework. Sci Justice. 1998;38(4):231–239.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cook R, Evett IW, Jackson G, Jones PJ, Lambert JA. Case pre-assessment and review in a two-way transfer case. Sci Justice. 1999;39:103–111.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evett IW, Jackson G, Lambert JA, McCrossan S. The impact of the principles of evidence interpretation on the structure and content of statements. Sci Justice. 2000;40(4):233–239.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jackson G (2000). The scientist and the scales of justice. Sci Justice. 40(2):81–85.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jackson G, Jones S, Booth G, Champod C, Evett IW. The nature of forensic science opinion-a possible framework to guide thinking and practice in investigations and in court proceedings. Sci Justice. 2006;46(1):33–44.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buckleton JS, Triggs CM, Champod C. An extended likelihood ratio framework for interpreting evidence Sci Justice. 2006;46(2):69–78.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Association of Forensic Science Providers, UK. Standards for the formulation of evaluative forensic science expert opinion, Sci Justice. 2009;49:161–164.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morrison GS. Measuring the validity and reliability of forensic likelihood-ratio systems. Sci Justice. 2011;51(3):91–98.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evett IW. Expressing evaluative opinions: a position statement. Sci. Justice. 2011;51:1–2.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berger C, Buckleton J, Champod C, Evett IW, Jackson G. Evidence evaluation: a response to the appeal court judgment in R v T. Sci Justice. 2011;51:43–49.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biedermann A, Voisard R, Taroni F. Learning about Bayesian networks for forensic interpretation: an example based on the ‘the problem of multiple propositions’. Sci Justice. 2012;52:191–198
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hicks T, Biedermann A, de Koeijer JA, Taroni F, Champod C, Evett IW. The importance of distinguishing information from evidence/observations when formulating propositions. Sci Justice. 2015;55:520–525.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berger CEH, Slooten K. The LR does not exist. Sci Justice Special Issue Meas Report Precis Forensic Likelihood Ratios. 2016;56:288–391.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morrison GS, Enzinger E. What should a forensic practitioner’s LR be? Sci Justice Special Issue Meas Report Precis Forensic Likelihood Ratios. 2016;56(5):374–379.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biedermann A, Bozza S, Taroni F, Aitken CGG. Reframing the debate: a question of probability, not of likelihood ratio. Sci Justice. Special Issue Meas Report Precis Forensic Likelihood Ratios. 2016;57:80–85.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marquis R, Biedermann A, Cadola L, Champod C, Gueissaz L, Massonnet G, Mazzella WD, Taroni F, Hicks T. Discussion on how to implement a verbal scale in a forensic laboratory: benefits, pitfalls and suggestions to avoid misunderstandings. Sci Justice. 2016;56:364–370.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biedermann A, Bozza S, Taroni F, Aitken CGG. The consequences of understanding expert probability reporting as a decision. Sci Justice. 2017;57:80–85.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dawid AP. Forensic Likelihood Ratio: Statistical problems and pitfalls. Sci Justice. 2017;57:73–75.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martire KA, Edmond G, Navarro DJ, Newell BR. On the Likelihood of “encapsulating all uncertainty”. Sci Justice. 2017;57:76–79.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evett IW. What is the probability that this blood came from that person? A meaningful question? J Forensic Sci Soc. 1983;23:35–39.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Evett IW. On meaningful questions: a two-trace transfer problem. J Forensic Sci Soc. 1987;27:375–381.
   Google Scholar
• Stoney DA. What made us ever think we could individualize using statistics? J Forensic Sci Soc. 1991;31(2):197–199.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Evett IW. Verbal conventions for handwriting opinions. J Forensic Sci. 2000;45(2), 508–509.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taroni F, Bozza S, Aitken CGG. Decision analysis in forensic science. J Forensic Sci. 2005;50(4):JFS2004443-12.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taroni F, Bozza S, Biedermann A. Two items of evidence, no putative source: an inference problem in forensic intelligence. J Forensic Sci. 2006;51(6):1350–1361.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aitken CGG, Zadora G, Lucy D. A two-level model for evidence evaluation. J Forensic Sci. 2007;52:412–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aitken CGG, Zadora G, Lucy D. A two-level model for evidence evaluation in the presence of zeros. J Forensic Sci. 2010;55:373–384.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biedermann A, Taroni F, Garbolino P. Equal prior probabilities: can one do any better? Forensic Sci Int. 2007;172:85
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biedermann A, Bozza S, Taroni F. Decision theoretic properties of forensic identification: underlying logic and argumentative implications. Forensic Sci Int. 2008;177:120–132.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biedermann A, Taroni F, Bozza S, Mazzella WD. Implementing statistical learning methods through Bayesian networks (Part 2): Bayesian evaluations for results of black toner analyses in forensic document examination. Forensic Sci Int. 2011;204:58–66
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Helper AB, Saunders CP, Davis LJ, Buscaglia J. Score-based likelihood ratios for handwriting evidence. Forensic Sci Int. 2012;219:129–140.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taroni F, Marquis R, Schmittbuhl M, Biedermann A, Thiéry A, Bozza S. The use of the likelihood ratio for evaluative and investigative purposes in comparative forensic handwriting examination. Forensic Sci Int. 2012;214, 189–194.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biedermann A, Taroni F. Letter to the editor re. “On the value of probability for evaluating results of comparative pattern analysis”. Forensic Sci Int. 2013;232: e44–e45.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taroni F, Marquis R, Schmittbuhl M, Biedermann A, Thiéry A, Bozza S. Bayes Factor for investigative assessment of selected handwriting features. Forensic Sci Int. 2014;242, 266–273.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biedermann A, Bozza S, Taroni F. The decisionalization of individualization. Forensic Sci Int. 2016;266:29–38.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biedermann A, Bozza S, Taroni F, Fürbach M, Li B, Mazzella WD. Analysis and evaluation of magnetism of black toners on documents printed by electrophotographic systems. Forensic Sci Int. 2016;267, 157–165.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taroni F, Biedermann A. Inadequacies of posterior probabilities for the assessment of scientific evidence, Law Probab Risk. 2005:4, 89–114.
   Google Scholar
• Kaye DH. Identification, individualization and uniqueness: What’s the difference? Law Probab Risk. 2009;8(2):85–94.
   Google Scholar
• Nordgaard A, Ansell R, Drotz W, Jaeger L. Scale of conclusions for the value of evidence. Law Probab Risk. 2012;11:1–24.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biedermann A, Vuille J, Taroni F, Champod C. The need for reporting standards in forensic science. Law Probab Risk. 2015;14:169–173.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taroni F, Bozza S, Biedermann A, Aitken CGG. Rejoinder. Law Probab Risk. 2016;15, 31–34.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taroni F, Bozza S, Biedermann A, Aitken CGG. Dismissal of the illusion of uncertainty in the assessment of a likelihood ratio (with discussion), Law Probab Risk. 2016;15, 1–16.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The earliest reference found was the following letter: Barnett PD. Letter to the Editor re. BD Gaudette “Strong Negative Conclusions in Hair Comparison – A Rare Event”, Can Soc Forensic Sci J. 1985;18(2):69–71.
   Google Scholar
• Aitken CGG, Taroni F. Statistics and the evaluation of evidence for forensic scientists. 2nd ed. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.; 2004.
   Google Scholar
• Lindley DV. Understanding Uncertainty. Hoboken NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Taroni F, Aitken C, Garbolino P, Biedermann A. Bayesian networks and probabilistic inference in forensic science. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.;2006.
   Google Scholar
• Day SP. Handwriting and signatures, interpretation of comparison results. In A. Jamieson, & A. Moenssens (Eds.), Wiley encyclopedia of forensic science. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.; 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Taroni F, Bozza S, Biedermann A, Garbolino P, Aitken CGG. Data analysis in forensic science: a Bayesian decision perspective. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Fenton N, Neil M. Risk assessment and decision analysis with Bayesian networks. Boca Raton: CRC Press/Taylor & Francis Group; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Zadora G, Martyna A, Ramos D, Aitken CGG. Statistical analysis in forensic science: evidential value of multivariate physiochemical data. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Ostrum RB, Tanaka TA. Workshop: “Questioned Documents: Conclusion Scales and Logical Inference – Part 1”; 2012 May 09; CSFS meeting, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC.
   Google Scholar
• Ostrum RB. Workshop: “Practical Applications of Logical Inference and Reasoning for QDE”; 2012 Nov 27/28; Canadian Police College, Ottawa, ON.
   Google Scholar
• Ostrum RB. Workshop: “Questioned Documents: Conclusion Scales and Logical Inference”; 2013 Aug 25; ASQDE meeting, Indianapolis, IN.
   Google Scholar
• Ostrum RB. Presentation “Conclusions” in “Signature and Handwriting Conclusion Terminology and Scales Panel Discussion” (Lines SR, moderator), 2014 Aug 14 Joint meeting of the ASQDE and ASFDE, Inc, Honolulu, HI.
   Google Scholar
• Ostrum RB. Presentation “The logical approach to evidence evaluation and reporting” In “Approaches To Evaluation And Reporting Of Expert Evidence: A Panel Discussion” (Bird C, moderator); 2016 Aug 23; ASQDE meeting, Pensacola Beach, FL.
   Google Scholar
• Ostrum RB. Workshop 1: “Theory of the logical approach for forensic handwriting casework”; 2018 Apr 30; Workshop 2: “Application of the logical approach for forensic handwriting casework”, 2018 May 1; CSFS Meeting, Gatineau, QC.
   Google Scholar
• National Commission on Forensic Science. Views Document (Draft) on “Statistical Statements in Forensic Testimony” [Internet]; 2016 Dec 31; Available from: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOJ-LA-2016-0025-0001.
   Google Scholar
• President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. Report to the president on forensic science in criminal courts: ensuring scientific validity of feature-comparison methods [Internet]. 2016 Dec 31. Available from: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/PCAST/pcast_forensic_science_report_final.pdf
   Google Scholar
• European Network of Forensic Science Institutes. ENFSI guideline for evaluative reporting in forensic science [Internet]. May 2015. Available from: http://enfsi.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/m1_guideline.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Ibid., p 5.
   Google Scholar
• National Institute of Forensic Sciences, Australia and New Zealand Policing Advisory Agency. An introductory guide to Evaluate Reporting [Internet]. June 2017. Available from: http://www.anzpaa.org.au/ArticleDocuments/220/An%20Introductory%20Guide%20to%20Evaluative%20Reporting.PDF.aspx
   Google Scholar
• Documentation of Forensic Handwriting Method: A Modular Approach, Version 2016. B. Found and C. Bird (Eds.) 19 August 2016.
   Google Scholar
• First outlined in G Jackson (2000). op. cit.
   Google Scholar
• Assoc of For Sci Providers, UK (2009), op. cit., 161.
   Google Scholar
• Ibid.
   Google Scholar
• Ibid.
   Google Scholar
• Ibid.
   Google Scholar
• Evett et al (2000), op. cit., 235.
   Google Scholar
• Roberts P, Aitken CGG. Communicating and Interpreting Statistical Evidence in the Administration of Criminal Justice, Guidance for Judges, Lawyers, Forensic Scientists and Expert Witnesses, Guide #3: ‘The logic of forensic proof: inferential reasoning in criminal evidence and forensic science’ [Internet]. May 2014. Prepared under the auspices of the Royal Statistical Society’s Working Group on Statistics and the Law. Available from: https://bit.ly/1QUv1zC.
   Google Scholar
• Jackson G, Aitken CGG, Roberts P. Communicating and Interpreting Statistical Evidence in the Administration of Criminal Justice, Guidance for Judges, Lawyers, Forensic Scientists and Expert Witnesses, Guide #4: ‘Case assessment and interpretation of expert evidence’ [Internet]. January 2015. Prepared under the auspices of the Royal Statistical Society’s Working Group on Statistics and the Law. Available from: https://bit.ly/1S1Pbrr.
   Google Scholar
• “Statistics and probability for advocates: understanding the use of statistical evidence in courts and tribunals” [Internet]. 2017. Prepared under the auspices of the Royal Statistical Society’s Working Group on Statistics and the Law in collaboration with the Inns of Court College of Advocacy. Available from: https://bit.ly/2BVmQSC.
   Google Scholar
• Martire KA, Kemp RI, Sayle M, Newell BR. On the interpretation of likelihood ratios in forensic science evidence: presentation formats and the weak evidence effect. Forensic Sci Int. 2014;24:61–68.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robertson B, Vignaux BA. Interpreting evidence: Evaluating forensic science in the courtroom. New York (NY): Wiley & Sons; 1995.
   Google Scholar