This Letter to the Editor is a reply to Mohammed et al. (2021) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2021.100145, which in turn is a response to Morrison et al. (2020) “Vacuous standards – subversion of the OSAC standards-development process” https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2020.06.005.
Reply to Response to Vacuous standards – Subversion of the OSAC standards-development process
Journal: Forensic Science International: Synergy
Published: 2021
Primary Author: Geoffrey Stewart Morrison
Secondary Authors: Cedric Newmann, Patrick Henry Geoghegan, Gary Edmond, Tim Grant, Brent Ostrum, Paul Roberts, Michael Saks, Denise Syndercombe Court, William Thompson, Sandy Zabell
Type: Publication
Research Area: Implementation and Practice
Related Resources
Demonstrative Evidence and the Use of Algorithms in Jury Trials
We investigate how the use of bullet comparison algorithms and demonstrative evidence may affect juror perceptions of reliability, credibility, and understanding of expert witnesses and presented evidence. The use of…
Interpretable algorithmic forensics
One of the most troubling trends in criminal investigations is the growing use of “black box” technology, in which law enforcement rely on artificial intelligence (AI) models or algorithms that…
What’s in a Name? Consistency in Latent Print Examiners’ Naming Conventions and Perceptions of Minutiae Frequency
Fingerprint minutia types influence LPEs’ decision-making processes during analysis and evaluation, with features perceived to be rarer generally given more weight. However, no large-scale studies comparing examiner perceptions of minutiae…
Shifting decision thresholds can undermine the probative value and legal utility of forensic pattern-matching evidence
Forensic pattern analysis requires examiners to compare the patterns of items such as fingerprints or tool marks to assess whether they have a common source. This article uses signal detection…