Probability Interpretation of Forensic Evidence
https://doi.org/10.30764/1819-2785-2017-12-4-6-11
Abstract
A short historical survey was carried out to compare different statistical approaches used in the field of forensics for the evaluation of individual features or sets of features, as well as the results of comparative examinations. Some advantages and disadvantages of each approach are considered, and the most appropriate trend is suggested for the improvement of statistical and mathematical tools of evidence interpretation in forensic practice
About the Authors
O. B. Gradusova
The Russian Federal Centre of Forensic Science of the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Head of the Laboratory of Forensic Biology and Soil Analysis,
RFCFS of the Russian Ministry of Justice
S. A. Kuz’min
Peoples' Friendship University of Russia
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Candidate of Law, Associate Professor of the Department of Forensic Science of the Institute of Law, RUDN University
References
1. Potapov S.M. Principles of criminalistic identification. Soviet state and right = Sovetskoe gosudarstvo i pravo. 1940. No 1. P. 66–81. (In Russ.).
2. Potapov S.M. Introduction to criminalistics. Moscow: RIO VYuA KA, 1946. 25 p. (In Russ.).
3. Kirk P.L. The Ontogeny of Criminalistics. The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science. 1963. Vol. 54. P. 235–238.
4. Kolosova V.M. Paper identification by a spectrographic method. Collection of scientific works on forensic medicine and boundary fields. Moscow: Medgiz, 1955. No 1. P. 216–219. (In Russ.).
5. Kolosova V.M. Assessment of data of the spectrographic analysis at a research of objects of forensic examination for the purpose of identification. Materials of 3 All-Union society of forensic scientists and 3 All-Union conference of scientific organization of medical examiners and criminalists. Riga, 1957. P. 169–171. (In Russ.).
6. Kolosova V.M., Mitrichev V.S., Odinochkina T.F. The spectral issue analysis at a research of material evidences. Moscow: VNII MVD SSSR, 1974. 144 p. (In Russ.).
7. Mitrichev V.S. Spectral analysis of farny glass. Questions of forensic examination and criminalistics. Collection of scientific works. Alma-Ata, 1959. Issue 1. P. 167–186. (In Russ.).
8. Mitrichev V.S., Khrustalev V.N. Bases of a criminalistic research of materials, substances and products from them. St. Petersburg: Piter, 2003. 198 p. (In Russ.).
9. Paliashvili A.A. To a question of a statistical method of determination of identification value of details of papillary patterns in dactyloscopic examination. Questions of Criminalistics = Voprosy kriminalistiki. Moscow: Legal literature, 1963. No 8–9 (23–24). P. 201–207. (In Russ.).
10. Poshkyavichus V.A. Quantitative expression of identification signs of handwriting as prerequisite of its research on electronic computers. Cybernetics and forensic examination = Kibernetika i sudebnaya ekspertiza. Vilnius, 1966. Issue 2. P. 41–53. (In Russ.).
11. Bogachkina G.F., Vul S.M., Orlova V.F., Prosolova E.M., Sobko G.M., Stribul’ T.I., Trubnikova V.A. Application of research methods based on probabilistic modeling in forensic handwriting examination. Moscow, 1976. 358 p. (In Russ.).
12. Kirsanov Z.I., Orlov P.G. Identification value of signs of appearance. Questions of criminalistics and forensic examination. Materials of a scientific conference. Dushanbe, 1962, Issue 2. P. 280–283. (In Russ.).
13. Granovskii G.L. Probabilistic assessment of linear (dynamic) traces for identification. Moscow: VNIISE. 1985. 19 p. (In Russ.).
14. Bishmanov B.M. Application of mathematical methods at the expert solution of judicial and ballistic tasks: Candidate thesis (Law). Volgograd, 1995. 152 p. (In Russ.).
15. Sobko G.M. Probabilistic and statistical justification of reliability of smell identification. Questions of the theory of forensic examination. Collection of scientific works. Moscow: VNIISE, 1977. No 31. P. 142–177. (In Russ.).
16. Orlova V.F., Krinskii V.I. Possibilities of use of probability theory for assessment of distinctions of private signs of handwriting. Problems of legal cybernetics: materials of symposium. Moscow, 1968. P. 179–181. (In Russ.).
17. Evett I.W. A Quantitative Theory for Interpreting Transfer Evidence in Criminal Cases. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series C (Applied Statistics). 1984. Vol. 33. No 1. P. 25–32.
18. Evett I.W., Lambert J.A. The interpretaton of refractve index measurements III. Forensic Science International. 1982. No 20. P. 237–245. Https://doi.org/10.1016/0379-0738(82)90123-2.
19. Koons R.D., Peters C.A., Rebbert P.S. Comparison of refractive index, energy dispersive x-ray fluorescence and inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectrometry for forensic characterization of sheet glass fragments. J. Analytical Atomic Spectrometry. 1991. No 6. P. 451–456. Doi: 10.1039/JA9910600451.
20. Lindley D.V. A Problem in Forensic Science. Biometrika. 1977. Vol. 64. Issue 2. P. 207–213. Https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/64.2.207.
21. Aitken C., Taroni F. Statistics and the Evaluation of Evidence for Forensic Scientists. 2-nd Edition. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 2004. 540 p.
22. Nefedov S.N. Bayesian approach to assessment of proofs and standardization of verbal formulations of conclusions of the expert. Problems of strengthening of legality and law and order: science, practice, tendencies: collection of scientific works. Issue 8. Minsk: Center of Problems of Strengthening of Legality and Law and Order of the Prosecutor General’s Office of Republic of Belarus. 2015. P. 187–195. (In Russ.).
23. Bebeshko G.G., Voytov S.A., Omelyanyuk G.G., Usov A.L. Applying Bayesian Methods for Metrological Evaluation and Interpretation of Forensic Evidence. Theory and Practice of Forensic Science. 2014. No 1(33). P. 148–158. (In Russ.).
24. Litvinov A.V. Objectification of diagnostics of prescription of origin of bruises in the colorimetric RGB system: abstract of candidate thesis (Medicine). Izhevsk, 2015. 23 p. (In Russ.).
25. Taroni F., Bozza S., Biedermann A., Garbolino P., Aitken C. Data Analysis in Forensic Science: A Bayesian Decision Perspective. N.-Y.: Wiley, 2010. 390 p.
26. Smirnova S.A., Omelyanyuk G.G., Usov A.L. Current Problems of Codification of Innovations in Forensic Practice in the Russian Federation. Theory and Practice of Forensic Science. 2016. No 1 (41). P. 26–35. (In Russ.).
Review
For citations:
Gradusova O.B., Kuz’min S.A. Probability Interpretation of Forensic Evidence. Theory and Practice of Forensic Science. 2017;12(4):27-33. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.30764/1819-2785-2017-12-4-6-11
Views:
1285
Email this article 