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 moreIs 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 Since the blog itself is no longer active, I have reposted the complete series of messages here (pulling them from archive.org).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.
ASFDE Inc 2022 Annual Scientific Meeting
The 2022 Annual Scientific Meeting of the ASFDE Inc. was held virtually from May 10 – 13, 2022. I really enjoyed the event (although it was, once again, only in virtual format).
R.C.M.P. Seminars 4 and 5 — Attendee information
Many years ago, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) Crime Detection Laboratories4 sponsored a series of Seminars relating to forensic science and two of those events, RCMP Seminars 4 and 5, focused on forensic document examination; a.k.a., questioned document examination.
The first seminar, #4, was entitled “The Examination of Questioned Documents” and it was held May 10-11, 1956 in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada at R.C.M.P. Headquarters. In 1958, again in Ottawa and at the same location, seminar #5 was held Oct 27 through Nov 1. The second seminar was entitled “Questioned Documents in Crime Detection”. Both seminars were attended by several R.C.M.P. examiners and many invited guests from various laboratories around the world as well as several well-known private examiners. The event produced several interesting papers and each of the resulting books of proceedings included a photograph of attendees together with their names and affiliations. Each of the proceedings was published by the Federal Queen’s Printer, Ottawa, Canada.
A number of document examiners have asked about the photograph and attendees because often the photograph has been distributed without the accompanying attendee information.
ASQDE 2021 Online Conference
The 79th Annual General Meeting of the American Society of Questioned Document Examiners (ASQDE, Inc) was held August 10th to 12th, 2021. It was again conducted online due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The theme for this year’s meeting was “ASQDE_AGM 2.0 ver. 2021 – The Future is Now”.
Impinging on the Court’s authority
One of the strangest things I have heard raised in argument against the logical approach is that use of the approach means the expert’s testimony will end up impinging upon the authority of the Court.5 I have heard this a few times recently. I find this particularly troubling because it has come from lawyers. Unfortunately, this has always happened in circumstances where I could not actually discuss the matter with them.
As an objection to the logical approach, this is the most unexpected thing I have ever heard, without a doubt. In reality, proper application of the logical approach is one of the few ways to ensure that this issue will not happen.
To clarify, it is important to first understand the concept of “usurping the role of the Court” which means, in essence, to improperly influence the court’s procedures and decision-making, often by speaking inappropriately to or about the ultimate issue. Or, in other words, to impinge on the Court’s authority to make decisions about the ultimate issue, or ‘what happened’. To be sure, there is a legitimate concern that this could be a problem, particularly when the court is listening to an expert. As a result, the concept has been discussed literally for years and it is not a new concern.
In fact, it can be found in various codes and directives regarding expert evidence. Indeed, Justice Sopinka noted this precise issue in the 1994 R. v. Mohan ruling when he stated, in part, “There is also a concern inherent in the application of this criterion that experts not be permitted to usurp the functions of the trier of fact.”
Read moreASFDE Inc 2021 Annual Scientific Meeting
The 2021 Annual Scientific Meeting of the ASFDE Inc. was held virtually from the 24th to the 28th of May 2021. I was fortunate to have the opportunity to attend and it was a great meeting (albeit only in virtual format).
CSFS Meeting 2021
AAFS 2021 Online Conference
The 73rd Annual General Meeting of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences was held February 15th to 19th, 2021. It was an online meeting and had the theme of “One Academy Pursuing Justice through Truth and Evidence”.
Read more
Book announcement: Forensic Document Examination in the 21st Century
I am very pleased to have been contributor to a new textbook, Forensic Document Examination in the 21st Century. The text was edited by Jan Seaman Kelly and Miriam Angel and will be published by CRC Press.
My personal contribution is chapter 3 entitled “The Logical Approach to Evidence Evaluation”. The complete list of contributors is impressive and includes Jan Seaman Kelly, Miriam Angel, Brett M.D. Bishop, Rigo Vargas, Mara L. Merlino, Samiah Ibrahim, Lucinda Risi, Lisa M. Hanson, Carolyne Bird, Linda L. Mitchell,
Read more