Quantifying the strength of firearms comparisons based on error rate studies DOI Creative Commons

Nada Aggadi,

Kimberley Zeller,

Tom Busey

et al.

Journal of Forensic Sciences, Journal Year: 2024, Volume and Issue: unknown

Published: Oct. 30, 2024

Abstract Forensic firearms and tool mark examiners compare bullets cartridge cases to assess whether they originate from the same source or different sources. To communicate their observations, rely on predefined conclusion scales ranging Identification Elimination. However, these terms have not been calibrated against actual strength of evidence except indirectly through error rate studies. The present research reanalyzes findings case comparisons studies generate a quantitative measure for each comparison. We use an ordered probit model summarize distribution responses aggregate data all produce set likelihood ratios. ratios can be as low less than 10, which does seem justify current articulation scale that may imply 10,000 greater. This suggests are using language overstates by several orders magnitude.

Language: Английский

Accuracy and reproducibility of latent print decisions on comparisons from searches of an automated fingerprint identification system DOI
R. Austin Hicklin, Nicole Richetelli,

Annette K. Taylor

et al.

Forensic Science International, Journal Year: 2025, Volume and Issue: unknown, P. 112457 - 112457

Published: April 1, 2025

Language: Английский

Citations

0
The influence of perceived difficulty, availability of marks, and examination time on the conclusions of firearms examiners DOI Open Access
Keith L. Monson,

Erich D. Smith,

Eugene M. Peters

et al.

Journal of Forensic Sciences, Journal Year: 2025, Volume and Issue: unknown

Published: Feb. 14, 2025

Abstract Concurrent with studies on the accuracy, repeatability, and reproducibility of decisions based comparisons fired bullet cartridge cases, we also collected opinions participating examiners as to characteristics specimens provided difficulty making comparisons. Examiners rated ease which they determined every conclusion (easy, average, hard) estimated qualitatively amount visual information available them in determining a (limited, some, extensive). Comparisons deemed hard were perceived generally have somewhat fewer markings conducive for assessment, while where limited produced larger number inconclusive determinations. Perceived increased wider separation firing order (within or between three defined segments 700–850 total firings). The repeatability these qualitative assessments exceeded 60% their average was ~50%. Examination times did not vary significantly when rendering identification, elimination, inconclusive, although identifications appear taken slightly longer than those cases. Hard comparisons, limited, treated substantially differently from any other types comparison. No correlation found attempted. These results tend contradict assertions by critics that are tempted declare save time avoid an elimination identification conclusion, non‐representative casework, affected degree examiner participation.

Language: Английский

Citations

0
Shining a Light on Forensic Black-Box Studies DOI Creative Commons

Kori Khan,

Alicia L. Carriquiry

Statistics and Public Policy, Journal Year: 2023, Volume and Issue: 10(1)

Published: May 23, 2023

Forensic science plays a critical role in the United States criminal justice system. For decades, many feature-based fields of forensic science, such as firearm and toolmark identification, developed outside scientific community's purview. The results these studies are widely relied on by judges nationwide. However, this reliance is misplaced. Black-box to date suffer from inappropriate sampling methods high rates missingness. Current black-box ignore both problems arriving at error rate estimates presented courts. We explore impact each type limitation using available data court materials. show that rely non-representative samples examiners. Using case study popular ballistics study, we find evidence may commit fewer errors than wider population which they came. also missingness non-ignorable. recent latent print ignoring likely systematic underestimates rates. Finally, offer concrete steps overcome limitations.

Language: Английский

Citations

9
Evidence-based evaluation of the analytical schemes in ASTM E2329-17 Standard Practice for Identification of Seized Drugs for methamphetamine samples DOI Creative Commons
Jeremy S. Triplett,

Jeff Salyards,

Sandra E. Rodriguez‐Cruz

et al.

Forensic Chemistry, Journal Year: 2024, Volume and Issue: 38, P. 100560 - 100560

Published: Feb. 20, 2024

This study involved 71 forensic seized drug laboratories analyzing 65 total samples; 17 were ground-truth positive (i.e., they contained methamphetamine or cocaine); 48 negative did not contain cocaine). The samples prepared at several target-analyte concentrations and combined with common cutting agents. designed to be challenging positional isomers of methamphetamine. Participants sent two different sample sets. In the first, directed only use a single, pre-selected analytical technique. second, scheme consisting multiple techniques in compliance ASTM E2329-17. results showed good accuracy; sensitivity was 1.000 for all schemes 1-specificity (the false-positive rate) ranging from 0.000 0.250 when E2329-17 compliant used. When single technique used, accuracy generally as good; ranged 0.091, 0.245.

Language: Английский

Citations

1
A special issue on Bayesian inference: challenges, perspectives and prospects DOI Creative Commons
Christian P. Robert, Judith Rousseau

Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences, Journal Year: 2023, Volume and Issue: 381(2247)

Published: March 27, 2023

Language: Английский

Citations

3
Methodological problems in every black-box study of forensic firearm comparisons DOI Creative Commons
Maria Cuellar, Susan VanderPlas, Amanda Luby

et al.

Law Probability and Risk, Journal Year: 2024, Volume and Issue: 23(1)

Published: Jan. 1, 2024

Abstract Reviews conducted by the National Academy of Sciences (2009) and President’s Council Advisors on Science Technology (2016) concluded that field forensic firearm comparisons has not been demonstrated to be scientifically valid. Scientific validity requires adequately designed studies examiner performance in terms accuracy, repeatability, reproducibility. Researchers have performed “black-box” with goal estimating these measures. As statisticians expertise experimental design, we a literature search such date then evaluated design statistical analysis methods used each study. Our conclusion is all our methodological flaws are so grave they render invalid, is, incapable establishing scientific firearms examination. Notably, error rates among examiners, both collectively individually, remain unknown. Therefore, statements about common origin bullets or cartridge cases based examination “individual” characteristics do basis. We provide some recommendations for future studies.

Language: Английский

Citations

0
Quantifying the strength of firearms comparisons based on error rate studies DOI Creative Commons

Nada Aggadi,

Kimberley Zeller,

Tom Busey

et al.

Journal of Forensic Sciences, Journal Year: 2024, Volume and Issue: unknown

Published: Oct. 30, 2024

Abstract Forensic firearms and tool mark examiners compare bullets cartridge cases to assess whether they originate from the same source or different sources. To communicate their observations, rely on predefined conclusion scales ranging Identification Elimination. However, these terms have not been calibrated against actual strength of evidence except indirectly through error rate studies. The present research reanalyzes findings case comparisons studies generate a quantitative measure for each comparison. We use an ordered probit model summarize distribution responses aggregate data all produce set likelihood ratios. ratios can be as low less than 10, which does seem justify current articulation scale that may imply 10,000 greater. This suggests are using language overstates by several orders magnitude.

Language: Английский

Citations

0