One topic I find intriguing as a forensic document examiner, and forensic scientist, is the process of reasoning when it is applied to evidence evaluation. This site and my blog discusses various topics but many relate to reasoning as it applies to FDE work. I generally use the term ‘logical reasoning’ to refer to the basic process of evaluation used by an examiner when examining evidence as they attempt to address questions posed to them. For obvious reasons it also relates to actual decision-making that might take place during that process. Ultimately, the approach an examiner takes in their reasoning and evaluation has an impact on all facets of their work including the choice of wording used to express a ‘conclusion’, ‘outcome’, or ‘opinion’ that derives from the evaluation process.
I hope people will agree that the evaluation of evidence should be done in a logically coherent manner. One’s beliefs can be considered coherent if, when expressed in terms of probabilities, they obey the three rules of probability; the convexity rule, the addition rule and the multiplication rule, in accordance with Lindsey (2007). More generally I use the term to mean reasoning that is both logically sound and applied consistently throughout the entire process.
Of course, any forensic evaluation must be relevant to the specific matter at hand (otherwise, why do it?), explicable, and functionally useful to the recipient of the resulting expert opinion. All of these this is embodied in what is known today as the logical approach to evidence evaluation.
All of these topics and concepts will benefit from discussion.
The blog section of this website is where I intend to put down my thoughts on these, and other, topics. The blog or FAQ sections are used to answer questions received about these topics when giving workshops and via e-mail queries. I hope the site will be a forum for discussion by practitioners and other interested parties.
Thanks very much, Brent.