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
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…
The Contribution of Forensic and Expert Evidence to DNA Exoneration Cases: An Interim Report
This report is from Simon A. Cole, Vanessa Meterko, Sarah Chu, Glinda Cooper, Jessica Weinstock Paredes, Maurice Possley, and Ken Otterbourg (2022), The Contribution of Forensic and Expert Evidence to…
CSAFE Project Update & ASCLD FRC Collaboration
This presentation highlighted CSAFE’s collaboration with the ASCLD FRC Collaboration Hub.