The logic of forensic identification gets some airtime – Talking about PCAST

Image result for likelihood ratio equation

“Finding the Way Forward for Forensic Science in the US” from Forensic Science International.

For some this article may seem esoteric, but its worth a try, especially if you are a non-science trained forensic tech, prosecutor or judge.

“This paper is written in response to a recent report on forensic science of the US President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) [1]. There have already been several responses to the report from the forensic community [2–7] which have resulted in an addendum to the report [8]. Our main concern is that the report (and its addendum) fails to recognise the advances in the logic of forensic inference that have taken place over the last 50 years or so. This is a serious omission which has led PCAST to a narrowly-focussed and unhelpful view of the future of forensic science.” (abstract available for free).


About csidds

Dr. Michael Bowers is a long time forensic consultant in the US and international court systems.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to The logic of forensic identification gets some airtime – Talking about PCAST

  1. mbhauptle says:

    The words “identical” and “identification” are not synonymous. In forensic odontology we “experts” compare dental radiographic evidence of the putative subject’s x-rays before death to those we take of the deceased person after death. Therefore, statistics play no role; either the x-rays show identical features or they don’t, all things being considered. Educate the jury on the process, and there can be no doubt.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s