Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock (
) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.
TC on Quantifying the Weight of Forensic Evidence::Online Proceedings
May 5-6, 2016 National Institute of Standards and Technology
Presentations of the first Technical Colloquium on Quantifying the weight of Forensic Evidence, 2016. This page is intended as a permanent archive of the presentations delivered to the TC.
May 5, 2016
Dr. Richard R. Cavanagh, NIST, NIST and Forensic Science: A Scan of the Environment
John Butler, NIST, Perpectives and Challenges from NIST Involvement in Forensic Science.
David Kaye, Penn State Law, Legal, Statistical, and Forensic Science Conceptions of the Weight of Evidence.
Jim Wayman, San Jose State University, What is probability?
Hari Iyer and Steve Lund, NIST, Communicating Weight of Forensic Evidence Using a LR: Whose prior, Whose likelihoods, and Whom are we kidding?
Marjan Sjerps, Netherland Forensic Institute, Evaluating and Reporting Forensic Evidence Using the LR Framework: Statistical Challenges.
Danica Ommen, Chris Saunders (South Dakota State University) and JoAnn Buscaglia, FBI, New approaches to the quantification of trace evidence for source identification.
Henry Swofford, U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Laboratory, Integrating Probabilistic Logic and Quantitative Data into Practice: Latent Print Examination.
Bill Thompson, UC Irvine, Lay Reactions to Quantitative Statements about the Weight of Forensic Science Evidence
May 6, 2016
Susan Ballou, NIST, Overview of NIST Forensic Research.
John Buckleton, NIST, The interpretation of DNA evidence.
Nicholas Petraco, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, Quantitative Firearms and Toolmark Analysis: New Developments and Software.
Geoffrey Steward Morrison and Ewald Enzinger, Morrison & Enzinger, Independent Forensic Consultants, A new paradigm for forensic science and its implementation in forensic voice comparison.
Panel on Similarity based LR models
Chair: Chris Neumann, South Dakota State University, Panel on Similarity--‐based LR Models And their Justification by the Subjective Argument.
Panelists:
Doug Armstrong, South Dakota State University, NIST panel on quantifying the weight of evidence.
Marjan Sjerps, Netherland Forensic Institute, Similarity based LR methods panel: answer to the three questions.
Hal Stern, UC Irvine, Panel on Similarity-Based Likelihood Ratio.
Steve Lund, NIST, Panel on Similarity-Based Likelihood Ratio.
Panel on LR Confidence interval
Chair: Chris Saunders, South Dakota State University, Panel on the use of Interval Quantifications for the Value of Forensic Evidence
Panelists:
Danica Ommen, South Dakota State University, Panel on the Use of Interval Quantifications for the Value of Forensic Evidence.
Marjan Sjerps, Netherland Forensic Institute, Intervals for LRs panel: answer to the three questions.
Hal Stern, UC Irvine, Panel on Confidence Intervals for Likelihood Ratios.
Hari Iyer, NIST, Use of Interval Quantifications for the value of forensic evidence.