Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Developing Evidentiary Foundation Based on Assessment of Forensic Results

  • SUBSTANCES ANALYSIS
  • Published:
Inorganic Materials Aims and scope

Abstract

Issues of development of modern approaches to probabilistic assessment of forensic research results have been receiving increased amounts of attention owing to the need for clear characteristics of the limitations of research results, which include indicators of uncertainty of obtained data and associated estimated probabilities. In the modern theory of judicial evidence assessment, the use of probabilities is acceptable and even preferred, and one of the main provisions is the principle of comparing probabilities in light of their dependency on competitive versions that arise from the adversarial nature of court proceedings. In this regard, the purpose of this article is to develop methodological approaches to the use of the likelihood ratio as the most appropriate way of determining the significance of conclusions submitted to the court by forensic experts for the formation of evidentiary foundation. A brief overview of publications from 2000–2018 concerned with forensic applications of the concept of the likelihood ratio is given. This concept can be used to reliably assess the credibility of evidence. In this article the term “evidence” is considered as various continuous quantitative measurements (of properties and features of forensic objects) that are used to compare a known sample with a questioned one and establish whether they originate from the same source or from different sources. The article discusses the most common normal distribution of continuous data and a general approach to calculating the likelihood ratio (LR) using probability density functions (pdfs). It is shown that accounting for the variability of the compared samples when calculating LR requires three databases: a potential database, a control database of the known sample, and a comparative database of the questioned sample. Examples of calculating LR and the strength of evidence for various types of examinations are given. The procedures for calculating LR are generally similar, but the authors suggest different techniques of calculating and graphically representing the strength of evidence. The value of the so-called cost of (penalty for) incorrect results (ClLR), is considered in detail; the concepts of its validity and reliability, as well as its credibility interval, are introduced. The article highlights a number of specific features of calculating LR for multivariate continuous data. Of great interest is the forensic audio analysis application of speaker models in the form of weighted sums of Gaussian densities of M components (Gaussian mixture models, GMM), where each component is a D-dimensional Gaussian pdf with an average vector value and a covariance matrix. It can be assumed that the use of GMM pdfs for calculating LR is effective not only for forensic audio examination but also for other types of examinations. The universal applicability of using the likelihood ratio to assess the similarity/difference of forensic objects indicates high viability of the approach.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In mathematics, a vector is a list of more than one variable. The index p refers to the number of observed parameters, for example, several ratios of concentrations of elements in the composition of the glass (x1, …, xp); the transposition of a column vector into a row vector is denoted as T.

REFERENCES

  1. Evett, J.W., Towards a uniform framework for reporting opinions in forensic science case-work, Sci. Justice, 1998, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 198–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1355-0306(98)72105-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Champod, C. and Meuwly, D., The inference of identity in forensic speaker recognition, Speech Commun., 2000, vol. 31, pp. 193–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-6393(99)00078-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Koons, R.D. and Buscaglia, J., Interpretation of glass composition measurements: the effects of match criteria on discrimination capability, J. Forensic Sci., 2001, vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 505–512. https://doi.org/10.1520/JFS2001349

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Aitken, C.G.G. and Lucy, D., Evaluation of trace evidence in the form of multivariate data, Appl. Stat., 2004, vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 109–122. https://doi.org/10.26896/1028-6861-2018-84-6-70-76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Aitken, C.G.G. and Taroni, F., Statistics and the Evaluation of Forensic Evidence for Forensic Scientist, Chichester: Wiley, 2004.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  6. Botti, F., Alexander, A., and Drygajlo, A., On compensation of mismatched recording conditions in the Bayesian approach for forensic automatic speaker recognition, Forensic Sci. Int., 2004, vol. 146, suppl. 2, pp. S101–S106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2004.09.032

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Balding, D.J., Weight-of-Evidence for Forensic DNA Profiles, Chichester: Wiley, 2005.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  8. Curran, M., An introduction to Bayesian credible intervals for sampling error in DNA profiles, Law, Probab. Risk, 2005, vol. 4, pp. 115–126. https://doi.org/10.1093/lpr/mgi009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. González-Rodríguez, J., Drygajlo, A.V., Ramos-Castro, D., et al., Robust estimation, interpretation and assessment of likelihood ratios in forensic speaker recognition, Comput. Speech Lang., 2006, vol. 20, pp. 331–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csl.2005.08.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Rose, P., Technical forensic speaker recognition: evaluation, types and testing of evidence, Comput. Speech Lang., 2006, vol. 20, nos. 2–3, pp. 159–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csl.2005.07.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Morrison, G.S., Forensic voice comparison and the paradigm shift, Sci. Justice, 2009, vol. 49, pp. 298–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2009.09.002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Association of Forensic Science Providers, Standards for the formulation of evaluative forensic science expert opinion, Sci. Justice, 2009, vol. 49, pp. 161–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2009.07.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Rose, P. and Morrison, G.S., A response to the UK position statement on forensic speaker comparison, Int. J. Speech Lang. Law, 2009, vol. 16, pp. 139–163. https://doi.org/10.1558/ijsll.v16i1.139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Taroni, F., Bozza, S., Biedermann, A., et al., Data Analysis in Forensic Science: A Bayesian Decision Perspective, New York: Wiley, 2010.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  15. Zadora, G. and Ramos, D., Evaluation of glass samples for forensic purposes—An application of likelihood ratios and an information–theoretical approach, Chemom. Intell. Lab. Syst., 2010, vol. 102, pp. 63–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemolab.2010.007

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Morrison, G., Measuring the validity and reliability of forensic likelihood-ratio systems, Sci. Justice, 2011, vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 91–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2011.03.002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Neumann, C., Evett, J.W., and Skerrett, J., Quantifying the weight of evidence from a forensic fingerprint comparison: a new paradigm, J. R. Stat. Soc., Ser. A, 2012, vol. 175, no. 2, pp. 371–415. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-985X.2011.01027.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Bebeshko, G.I., Omelyuk, G.G., and Usov, A.I., The role and significance of likelihood ratio concept in assessment and interpretation of the results of forensic activities, Zavod. Lab., Diagn. Mater., 2018, vol. 84, no. 6, pp. 70–76. https://doi.org/10.26896/1028-6861-2018-84-6-70-76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Gradusova, O.V. and Kuz’min, S.A., Probability interpretation of forensic evidence, Teor. Prakt. Sud. Ekspert., 2017, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 27–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Nefedov S.N., Bayesian approach to evidence assessment and standardization of verbal statements of expert conclusions, in Problemy ukrepleniya zakonnosti i pravoporyadka: nauka, praktika, tendentsii (Problems of strengthening the rules of law and Order: science, practice, trends), Minsk: Resp. Inst. Prof. Obraz., 2015, no. 8, pp. 187–195.

  21. Lindley, D.V., A problem in forensic science, Biometrika, 1977, vol. 64, pp. 207–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Curran, J.M., Triggs, C.M., Almirall, J.R., et al., The interpretation of elemental composition from forensic glass evidence: I, Sci. Justice, 1997, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 241–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1355-0306(97)72197-X

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Curran, J.M., Triggs, C.M., Almirall, J.R., et al., The interpretation of elemental composition from forensic glass evidence: II, Sci. Justice, 1997, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 245–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1355-0306(97)72198-1

  24. Koons, R.D. and Buscaglia, J., Interpretation of glass composition measurements: the effects of match criteria on discrimination capability, J. Forensic Sci., 2002, vol. 47, pp. 505–512.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Martyna, A., Lucy, D., Zadora, G.V., et al., The evidential value of microspectrophotometry measurements made for pen inks, Anal. Methods, 2013, vol. 5, pp. 6788–6795. https://doi.org/10.1039/C341622D

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Brümmer, N. and du Preez, J., Application independent evaluation of speaker detection, Comput. Speech Lang., 2006, vol. 20, nos. 2–3, pp. 230–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csl.2005.08.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Ramos, D. and Gonzalez-Rodriguez, J., Reliable support: measuring calibration of likelihood ratios, Forensic Sci. Int., 2013, vol. 230, nos. 1–3, pp. 156–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2013.04.014

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Ramos, D., Gonzalez-Rodriguez, J., Zadora, G., and Aitken, C., Information-theoretical assessment of the performance of likelihood ratio computation methods, J. Forensic Sci., 2013, vol. 58, no. 6, pp. 1503–1518. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.12233

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Drygajlo, A., Automatic speaker recognition for forensic case assessment and interpretation, in Forensic Speaker Recognition: Law Enforcement and Counter-Terrorism, Neustein, A. and Patil, H.A., Eds., New York: Springer-Verlag, 2012, ch. 2, pp. 21–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-0263-3_2

  30. Kinnunen, T. and Li, H., An overview of text-independent speaker recognition: from features to supervectors, Speech Commun., 2010, vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 12–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.specom.2009.08.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Meuwly, D. and Drygajlo, A., Forensic speaker recognition based on a Bayesian framework and Gaussian mixture modeling (GMM), Proc. 2001 Speaker Recognition Workshop A Speaker Odyssey, Crete, Greece, June 18–22, 2001, Los Angeles: ISCA, 2001.

  32. Reynolds, D.A., Automatic speaker recognition using Gaussian mixture speaker models, Lincoln Lab. J., 1995, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 173–191.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Reynolds, D.A., Quatieri, T.F., and Dunn, R.B., Speaker verification using adapted Gaussian mixture models, Digital Signal Process., 2000, vol. 10, nos. 1–3, pp. 19–41. https://doi.org/10.1006/dspr.1999.0361

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Matveev, Yu.N., Technologies for biometric identification of individuals by voice and other modalities, Vestn. Mosk. Gos. Tekh. Univ. im. N.E. Baumana, 2012, no. 3 (3), pp. 46–61.

  35. Kozlov, A.V., Kudashev, O.Yu., Matveev, Yu.N., et al., Speaker recognition system for the NIST SRE 2012, Inf. Avtom., 2013, no. 2 (25), pp. 350–370.

  36. Morrison, G.S., Zhang, C., and Rose, P., An empirical estimate of the precision of likelihood ratios from a forensic-voice-comparison system, Forensic Sci. Int., 2011, vol. 208, pp. 59–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2010.11.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. González-Rodríguez, J., Rose, P., Ramos, D., et al., Emulating DNA: rigorous quantification of evidential weight in transparent and testable forensic speaker recognition, IEEE Trans. Audio Speech Lang. Process., 2007, vol. 15, pp. 2104–2115. https://doi.org/10.1109/TASL.2007.902747

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Morrison, G.S., Likelihood-ratio forensic voice comparison using parametric representations of the formant trajectories of diphthongs, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 2009, vol. 125, pp. 2387–2397. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.3081384

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. van Leeuwen, D.A. and Brümmer, N., An introduction to application-independent evaluation of speaker recognition systems, in Speaker Classification I: Fundamentals, Features, and Methods, Müller, C., Ed., Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 2007, pp. 330–353. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-74200-5_19

  40. Morrison, G.S., Forensic voice comparison using likelihood ratios based on polynomial curves fitted to the formant trajectories of Australian English/ai/, Int. J. Speech Lang. Law, 2008, vol. 15, pp. 247–264. https://doi.org/10.1558/ijsll.v15i2.249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Morrison, G.S., A comparison of procedures for the calculation of forensic likelihood ratios from acoustic-phonetic data: multivariate kernel density (MVKD) versus Gaussian mixture model–universal background model (GMM-UBM), Speech Commun., 2011, vol. 53, pp. 242–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.specom.2010.09.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Aitken, C.G.G., Statistical discriminant analysis in forensic science, J. Forensic Sci. Soc., 1986, vol. 26, pp. 237–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Berry, D.A., Evett, I.W., and Pinchin, R., Statistical inference in crime investigations using deoxyribonucleic acid profiling (with discussion), Appl. Stat., 1992, vol. 41, pp. 499–531. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9876.1992/tb02418.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Chan, K.P.S. and Aitken, C.G.G., Estimation of the Bayes’ factor in a forensic science problem, J. Stat. Comput. Simul., 1989, vol. 33, pp. 249–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Brümmer, N., Burget, L., Cernocký, J.H., et al., Fusion of heterogenous speaker recognition systems in the STBU submission for the NIST SRE 2006, IEEE Trans. Audio Speech Lang. Process., 2007, vol. 15, pp. 2072–2084. https://doi.org/10.1109/TASL.2007.902870

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Pigeon, S., Druyts, P., and Verlinde, P., Applying logistic regression to the fusion of the NIST’99 1-speaker submissions, Digital Signal Process., 2000, vol. 10, pp. 237–248. https://doi.org/10.1006/dspr.1999.0358

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Martyna, A., Michalska, A., and Zadora, G., Interpretation of FTIR spectra of polymers and Raman spectra of car paints by means of likelihood ratio approach supported by wavelet transform for reducing data dimensionality, Anal. Bioanal. Chem., 2015, vol. 407, pp. 3357–3376. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-015-8558-9

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Daubechies, I., Ten Lectures on Wavelets (CBMS-NSF Regional Conference Series in Applied Mathematics), Philadelphia: Soc. Ind. Appl. Math., 1992.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Russian Federal Center of Forensic Science of the Ministry of Justice (RFCFS), 109028, Moscow, Russia

    S. A. Smirnova, G. I. Bebeshko, G. G. Omel’yanyuk, A. I. Usov & Sh. N. Khaziev

  2. Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia (RUDN), 117198, Moscow, Russia

    S. A. Smirnova, G. G. Omel’yanyuk & A. I. Usov

  3. Bauman Moscow State Technical University, 105005, Moscow, Russia

    G. G. Omel’yanyuk & A. I. Usov

Authors
  1. S. A. Smirnova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. G. I. Bebeshko
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. G. G. Omel’yanyuk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. A. I. Usov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Sh. N. Khaziev
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to G. I. Bebeshko, G. G. Omel’yanyuk or A. I. Usov.

Additional information

Translated by A. Ovchinnikova

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Smirnova, S.A., Bebeshko, G.I., Omel’yanyuk, G.G. et al. Developing Evidentiary Foundation Based on Assessment of Forensic Results. Inorg Mater 57, 1431–1439 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1134/S0020168521140107

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1134/S0020168521140107

Keywords:

Search

Navigation