Forensic reports use various types of conclusions, such as a categorical (CAT) conclusion or a likelihood ratio (LR). In order to correctly assess the evidence, users of forensic reports need to understand the conclusion and its evidential strength. The aim of this paper is to study the interpretation of the evidential strength of forensic conclusions by criminal justice professionals. In an online questionnaire 269 professionals assessed 768 reports on fingerprint examination and answered questions that measured self-proclaimed and actual understanding of the reports and conclusions. The reports entailed CAT, verbal LR and numerical LR conclusions with low or high evidential strength and were assessed by crime scene investigators, police detectives, public prosecutors, criminal lawyers, and judges. The results show that about a quarter of all questions measuring actual understanding of the reports were answered incorrectly. The CAT conclusion was best understood for the weak conclusions, the three strong conclusions were all assessed similarly. The weak CAT conclusion correctly emphasizes the uncertainty of any conclusion type used. However, most participants underestimated the strength of this weak CAT conclusion compared to the other weak conclusion types. Looking at the self-proclaimed understanding of all professionals, they in general overestimated their actual understanding of all conclusion types.
Forensic reports use various types of conclusions, such as a categorical (CAT) conclusion or a likelihood ratio (LR). In order to correctly assess the evidence, users of forensic reports need to understand the conclusion and its evidential strength. The aim of this paper is to study the interpretation of the evidential strength of forensic conclusions by criminal justice professionals. In an online questionnaire 269 professionals assessed 768 reports on fingerprint examination and answered questions that measured self-proclaimed and actual understanding of the reports and conclusions. The reports entailed CAT, verbal LR and numerical LR conclusions with low or high evidential strength and were assessed by crime scene investigators, police detectives, public prosecutors, criminal lawyers, and judges. The results show that about a quarter of all questions measuring actual understanding of the reports were answered incorrectly. The CAT conclusion was best understood for the weak conclusions, the three strong conclusions were all assessed similarly. The weak CAT conclusion correctly emphasizes the uncertainty of any conclusion type used. However, most participants underestimated the strength of this weak CAT conclusion compared to the other weak conclusion types. Looking at the self-proclaimed understanding of all professionals, they in general overestimated their actual understanding of all conclusion types.
Non-invasive, rapid, on-site detection and identification of body fluids is highly desired in forensic investigations. The use of fluorescence-based methods for body fluid identification, have so far remain relatively unexplored. As such, the fluorescent properties of semen, serum, urine, saliva and fingermarks over time were investigated, by means of fluorescence spectroscopy, to identify specific fluorescent signatures for body fluid identification. The samples were excited at 81 different excitation wavelengths ranging from 200 to 600 nm and for each excitation wavelength the emission was recorded between 220 and 700 nm. Subsequently, the total emitted fluorescence intensities of specific fluorescent signatures in the UV–visible range were summed and principal component analysis was performed to cluster the body fluids. Three combinations of four principal components allowed specific clustering of the body fluids, except for fingermarks. Blind testing showed that 71.4% of the unknown samples could be correctly identified. This pilot study shows that the fluorescent behavior of ageing body fluids can be used as a new non-invasive tool for body fluid identification, which can improve the current guidelines for the detection of body fluids in forensic practice and provide the robustness of methods that rely on fluorescence.
MULTIFILE
