Posted on by RB Ostrum

Statistics as Principled Argument

In 1995, Yale University Professor Robert Abelson (1928-2005) wrote an interesting and engaging treatise on a topic that, on the face of it, seems obvious. He presents this in his text, “Statistics As Principled Argument”. The book is a quick and easy read and I would recommend it to anyone, whether or not they are into statistics. The concepts are presented in a way accessible to most readers.

The book begins, appropriately enough, with Abelson’s Laws which are:

  1. Chance is lumpy.
  2. Overconfidence abhors uncertainty.
  3. Never flout a convention just once.
  4. Don’t talk Greek if you don’t know the English translation.
  5. If you have nothing to say, don’t say anything.
  6. There is no free lunch.
  7. You can’t see the dust if you don’t move the couch.
  8. Criticism is the mother of methodology.

The meaning of each of the above becomes clear as the text proceeds through the 9 chapters that follow.

Read more
Posted on by RB Ostrum

Practical Issues when applying the logical approach to FDE work

Applying the logical approach to evidence evaluation in forensic work can be a challenge. I am the first person to admit that is the case. However, I would argue that (1) a challenge is not something to be avoided — it’s something to take on, and (2) the traditional way of doing things is not easy — it too is a challenge. In fact, it is very important to understand that the logical approach is no more difficult or challenging than what has always been done by forensic document examiners. Indeed, in many ways it is simpler and more straight-forward than our ‘traditional’ approach to such things. This post will touch upon some of the practical issues faced by examiners when applying the logical approach to FDE work.

After studying and using this approach for some time I can assure you that it is not a particularly difficult approach to apply. In select aspects it differs from the traditional approach and, as a result, it feels unfamiliar. Often, this relates to the need to consider things more fully; giving consideration to things we tend to ‘quickly assess’ (or dismiss) when using the traditional approach. But it does not change most things that we do. In fact, it primarily affects the evaluation element of the work; not the elements of analysis or comparison. It requires a different way of thinking about the evaluation process which starts with the focus of the evaluation.

The earliest workshops I presented on this topic were focused, for the most part, on the theory and philosophical bases of the approach, plus the benefits of using it. I did not try to delve into the practical side of things, mainly due to time constraints, but also because I was simply trying to convey its value. FDE’s are, however, a practical lot so I feel that my approach has had limited impact. The most common feedback has been, “I can’t see how it will work in practice…”

That is a fair enough criticism, all things considered. More recently, I have been involved in workshops designed expressly for hands-on practice — after all, there really is nothing like hands-on activities to make something real and tangible. More of those workshops are needed, but they are time-consuming to create. For now, here are some thoughts on these issues deriving mainly from feedback received to date during those workshops.

Read more
Posted on by RB Ostrum

ICFIS 2023

The 11th International Conference on Forensic Inference and Statistics, or ICFIS 2023, is set for June 12-15 of this year. It will be held at the Faculty of Law (Juridicum) of Lund University, Lund, Sweden. While I am saddened that I cannot attend this particular meeting, several years ago I had the pleasure of going to the 2014 International Conference on Forensic Inference and Statistics, or ICFIS which was the 9th iteration of the conference. I wrote a blog post about that meeting some time ago.

I can say, based on past experience alone, that this meeting is well worth attending. That’s particularly true if you are interested in the logical approach to evidence evaluation, but it would benefit any forensic scientist. You will not find a better collection of brilliant people all focused on forensic inference, in the broadest sense.

Forensic scientists, lawyers, academics—they will all be there.

Read more
Posted on by RB Ostrum

But doesn’t that mean it is ‘more likely than not’?

When an examiner expresses an opinion along the lines of ‘the findings support one proposition over another proposition’, a question often follows. Specifically, does that opinion mean ‘it is more likely than not that the favoured proposition actually happened’?1 The short answer is “no, it does not mean that.” At least, not necessarily.

In order to reach such a conclusion one must consider information that goes beyond the FDE evidence. As a rule, any opinion I provide will be constrained to the probability of the findings/observations in terms of one of at least two possible explanations.2 Ultimately, equating the two statements is inappropriate because they are not equivalent.3Read more

Posted on by RB Ostrum

Science vs Pseudoscience

Years ago, in 2013 to be precise, I was invited to speak at the ICA conference held in Montréal, Québec.  The conference had a special session on “distinguishing between science and pseudoscience in forensic acoustics”. Now, I am definitely not an expert in forensic acoustics.  In fact, I know almost nothing about the field other than what I’ve read from time to time. So I wasn’t there to tell the audience anything about forensic acoustics, per se.

Read more
Posted on by RB Ostrum

Is Absolute Uniqueness Necessary?

Many years ago I came across an interesting, if limited, discussion in a blog post entitled “Expert testimony in pattern evidence cases – is absolute uniqueness necessary?”1,2 That post is dated Sept 4, 2009, shortly after the publication of National Academy of Science’s report “Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: a Path Forward”.3 But the basic question posed in it is still relevant today. I would say that most forensic practitioners today would answer the question about the necessity of ‘absolute uniqueness’ in the negative. However, their individual reason(s) for their answer will still vary.

For many people, ‘absolute uniqueness’ is mainly a ‘forbidden’ concept because of some policy they must follow, or because of a more personal recognition of an (often vague) issue relating to the ‘limits of science’. For other people the matter is a well-defined issue in science and logic dictated by the nature and limits of information (knowledge), what information can really tell us about the world, and how information can and should be used to update beliefs about the world. For the latter group (which is steadily increasing in size as awareness and understanding improves), the concept of ‘absolute uniqueness’ is neither required, nor even beneficial in forensic work.

There has been a LOT of discussion about this in recent years, but I found the blog post interesting at the time even though it focused mainly on latent print examination. I feel that not much has changed since then so, even now, it deserves recognition and consideration.  Since the blog itself is no longer active, I have reposted the complete series of messages here (pulling them from archive.org).

The topic started with a post from the moderator (Barry Fisher) who wrote:

Expert testimony in pattern evidence cases – is absolute uniqueness necessary?
What information is needed to form a conclusion about an identification? Do conclusions require statistical data, as in DNA cases, to offer an opinion? Is it possible to state that two items of evidence come from a sole source? What may an expert opine when no statistical data is readily available and only experience suggests a conclusion? The National Academy report raises some profound questions and some intriguing research possibilities. But in the interim, while we wait for academics to study the multitude of pattern evidence forensic scientists encounter in their day to day work, who may report cases and testify in court? Readers are invited to speak to these issues.

Read more

Posted on by RB Ostrum

ASQDE 2020 Online Conference

ASQDE logoThe 78th Annual General Meeting of the American Society of Questioned Document Examiners (ASQDE, Inc) was held August 10th through 14th, 2020.  It was a new type of meeting necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic.  The meeting was originally planned to be held in Frankenmuth, Michigan but a (very wise) decision was made to hold an entirely virtual meeting instead.  The theme for this year was “Future-Proofing Questioned Documents”.
Read more

Posted on by RB Ostrum

Measurement Science and Standards in Forensic Handwriting Analysis Conference

The expression “better late than never” applies to this post. Over the span of two days in June 2013 the Measurement Science and Standards in Forensic Handwriting Analysis (MSSFHA) conference was held. It explored the (then) current state of forensic handwriting analysis, aka, forensic handwriting examination (FHE). Presentations varied in content but most discussed recent advancements in measurement science and quantitative analyses as it relates to FHE.

NIST Forensic logo

The conference was organized by NIST’s Law Enforcement Standards Office (OLES) in collaboration with the AAFS — Questioned Document Section, the ABFDE, the ASQDE, the FBI Laboratory, the NIJ and SWGDOC.

Read more