Reporting Flashcards
where is the guidance on reporting in forensic science found
The Forensic Science Service or ENFSI guidelines
what are the 4 types of reports used in forensic science
evaluative - used in court
intelligence
investigative - links multiple crimes
technical - short and concise, not used in court
what are key features of an evaluative report in forensic science (3)
an assessment of the strengths attached to the experts findings in the context of the case
usually use LR
include limitations to the analysis conduced
what should not be used in an evaluative report
categorical statements
what 5 things should an evaluative report be based on
your findings
expert knowledge
associated data
case specific propositions
conditioning information (be careful of prosecutors fallacy)
give some examples of what might be found in an evaluative report (11)
case info received and instructions
items received
a statement saying you might need to reconsider if new info comes
issues
examination strategy
detailed methods
pre-assessment and prior odds
data collected
observations and analytical results
discussion and evaluate strength of support of your findings
conclusions = short and concise
in what two ways are conclusions presented in evaluative reports
using the LR
or
using a verbal scale that expresses a degree of support for one propositions related to another
e.g strong support, moderate, weak
what are the 4 requirements of an evaluative scientific report outlined by ENFSI
balance
logic
robustness
transparency
discuss how balance is achieved here
considering the pair of propositions not just one
if no alternative proposition can be suggested the value of the findings can not be assessed
discuss how logic is achieved here
address probability of findings given the propositions adn relevant information
do not transpose the conditional (the probability of the propositions given the findings and background info)
discuss how robustness is achieved here
report can withstand scrutiny and cross examination
base it on sound knowledge and expertise using specialist knowledge and data
discuss how transparency is achieved here
easy for jury to understand
clear methods to follow
good explanation of technical background and terminology
unbiased and good ethical conduct
what advice is given by the Forensic Science Regulator in the code of practice on the reporting in forensic science
different disciplines have evolved their own way of assessing value
why is good to have guidance on how to report in forensic science (3)
- reduce variability across fields
- have common terminology applicable over the fields
- main aim to help the court and increase transparency
give some examples of disciplines the codes of practice adhere to
BPA
DNA
drug examination
document analysis
explosive
fingerprint comparison
fires
firearms
toxicology
trace evidence
what is the case management framework outlined by the regulator (7)
- review what is being asked
2.key issues to address - what examination is required
- do the analysis
- interpret findings
- write report
- appear in court
if you do not have two propositions what types of report can you give
intelligence, investigative or technical - these can state the findings but not assess the value of them
NOT evaluative
what are Obiter Dicta
statements made by the judge that are not based on science
what is a type of reporting recently introduced and why was it introduced
SFR - streamlined forensic reporting
to simplify the reporting process so people understand
improve efficiency, clarity and focus of reports
discuss the adv (6) and disadv (3) of SFR
adv
- more clarity
- more concise
- easier for jury to read and understand
- reduces complexity
- more efficient
- better standardisation between fields
disadv
- loss of context
- could be over simplified
- potential for miscommunication / understanding
when is a categorical conclusion used
in areas with comparative examinations e.g fingerprints, handwriting, tool marks, footwear marks
do not used LR or Bayes Theorem
in which type of report should qualitative evaluations be presented
in intelligence reports
they should not be presented in a way that they have evidential weight
what are the two conclusions types in forensic science
categorical = fingerprints, toolmarks
and
evaluative = DNA, fibres
when making a categorical conclusion what two things are considered
the degree or correspondence of features shared by the two
the probability of those features being observed in another source
why must the probabilities here (LR) add up to 1
there accused can only be guilty or innocent there is no inbetween
what two things can probabilities in forensic science be
subjective = the strength of someone’s belief in a proposition
objective = a measure of chance where everyone would agree the value of the probabaility
what two types of generic sample do we deal with
questions
controls/references
what two things can frequencies be here
relative = a frequency calculated in reference to something observed over time or in a population
e.g 1 in 10
absolute = how often it occurs
what are three ways of expressing probabilities seen in forensic reporting
percentages
relative frequencies
likelihood ratios
what type of frequency is the likelihood ratio
a relative frequency of the propositions as a measure of meaning and probative value
what is the base rate fallacy
making a probability judgement based on conditional probabilities without considering the prior odds
what two ways are stains of biological fluid detected by
what bodily fluids are detected in this way
what fluids are not detected in this way
visual examination
presumptive testing
blood, saliva, semen
sweat, skin cells, vaginal secretions - we cant attribute the DNA profile from these evidence types to a type of bodily fluid
what is referred to as the ultimate issue and who must deal with this
the ultimate issue are offence level statements making conclusions about criminal responsibility and liability
the court must deal with this not us as experts
why must experts not testify to offence level propositions
they involve factual and moral judgements the scientists are not competent to make
