Search

The article discusses the joint recommendations of the project group "Biostatistical DNA Calculations" and the Stain Commission on the Biostatistical Evaluation of Forensic DNA Analytical Findings with Fully Continuous Models (FCM). While the adoption of FCMs in Germany is praised, the authors point out some issues with the recommendations. They discuss the different zones defined by the authors for reporting likelihood ratios (LRs) obtained from FCMs and highlight the need for evaluating the performance and calibration of LR systems. The article emphasizes the importance of analyzing a large set of LRs and comparing their performance rather than directly comparing individual LRs from different systems. The authors argue that the current recommendations do not effectively ensure safe and comparable application of forensic DNA analysis. They highlight the need for proper testing of LR systems to evaluate their performance and increase trust in their output. The authors also emphasize the importance of informing the court about the probabilistic nature of forensic findings without giving an illusion of achieved certainty. They suggest that implementing the current recommendations may result in many impactful forensic results never reaching the courts. [Extracted from the article]

Forensic firearm examination provides the court of law with information about the source of fired cartridge cases. We assessed the validity of source decisions of a computer‐based method and of 73 firearm examiners who compared breechface and firing pin impressions of 48 comparison sets. We also compared the computer‐based method's comparison scores with the examiners' degree‐of‐support judgments and assessed the validity of the latter. The true‐positive rate (sensitivity) and true‐negative rate (specificity) of the computer‐based method (for the comparison of both the breechface and firing pin impressions) were 94.4% and at least 91.7%, respectively. For the examiners, the true‐positive rate was at least 95.3% and the true‐negative rate was at least 86.2%. The validity of the source decisions improved when the evaluations of breechface and firing pin impressions were combined and for the examiners also when the perceived difficulty of the comparison decreased. The examiners were reluctant to provide source decisions for "difficult" comparisons even though their source decisions were mostly correct. The correlation between the computer‐based method's comparison scores and the examiners' degree‐of‐support judgments was low for the same‐source comparisons to negligible for the different‐source comparisons. Combining the outcomes of computer‐based methods with the judgments of examiners could increase the validity of firearm examinations. The examiners' numerical degree‐of‐support judgments for their source decisions were not well‐calibrated and showed clear signs of overconfidence. We suggest studying the merits of performance feedback to calibrate these judgments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The limitations of the examination of indented writing impressions using electrostatic detection are often paper related. Paper types such as glossy paper, paper of high basis weight, and lithography or gravure-printed papers often give rise to problems resulting in a decrease in sensitivity or a lack of detection altogether. In this paper, a novel technique for the examination of indented writing is presented, which is in a sense complimentary to the technique of electrostatic detection as it is especially suitable for glossy-coated and printed paper types and can in some instances also deal with paper types of higher basis weight. Indented writing grooves will normally contain more particles than the surrounding nonindented areas due to damage of the surface layer resulting in a build-up of filler powder. The method presented uses black gelatine lifter slabs to lift the paper dust image off the surface of the paper. This image can quite easily be photographed using near-to-coaxial lighting. The gelatine lifting method outperforms oblique lighting for the detection of indented writing and is almost as sensitive as electrostatic detection if compared on the types of paper where both perform well. The main advantage of this new technique is, however, that it is especially suitable for those types of paper where electrostatic detection fails and is therefore a welcome addition to the range of methods available to a forensic document examiner for the examination of indented writing.