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
Computational Shoeprint Analysis for Forensic Science
Shoeprints are a common type of evidence found at crime scenes and are regularly used in forensic investigations. However, their utility is limited by the lack of reference footwear databases…
Challenges in Modeling, Interpreting, and Drawing Conclusions from Images as Forensic Evidence
When a crime is committed, law enforcement directs crime scene experts to obtain evidence that may be pertinent to identifying the perpetrator(s). Much of this evidence comes in the form…
Aligning Shoeprint Images that have nonlinear distortion effects
Shoeprints are aligned before assessing similarity, and automatic alignment algorithms can handle differences in translation, rotation [1], and scale. But shoeprints recorded at a crime scene may be partials photographed…
Graph-Theoretic Techniques for Forensic Image Comparisons
This presentation is from the 76th Annual Conference of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences (AAFS), Denver, Colorado, February 19-24, 2024.