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
How do Labs Ensure Quality? A Nationwide Review of SOPs for Latent Print Examination
This presentation is from the 108th International Association for Identification (IAI) Annual Educational Conference, Reno, Nevada, August 11-17, 2024. Posted with permission of CSAFE.
Statistics and its Applications in Forensic Science and the Criminal Justice System
This presentation is from the 2024 Joint Statistical Meetings (JSM), Portland, Oregon, August 3-8, 2024.
Silencing the Defense Expert
In the wake of the 2009 NRC and 2016 PCAST Reports, the Firearms and Toolmark (FATM) discipline has come under increasing scrutiny. Validation studies like AMES I, Keisler, AMES II,…
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…