Evaluating forensic biology results given source level propositions

The evaluation of forensic evidence can occur at any level within the hierarchy of propositions depending on the question being asked and the amount and type of information that is taken into account within the evaluation. Commonly DNA evidence is reported given propositions that deal with the sub-source level in the hierarchy, which deals only with the possibility that a nominated individual is a source of DNA in a trace (or contributor to the DNA in the case of a mixed DNA trace). We explore the use of information obtained from examinations, presumptive and discriminating tests for body fluids, DNA concentrations and some case circumstances within a Bayesian network in order to provide assistance to the Courts that have to consider propositions at source level. We use a scenario in which the presence of blood is of interest as an exemplar and consider how DNA profiling results and the potential for laboratory error can be taken into account. We finish with examples of how the results of these reports could be presented in court using either numerical values or verbal descriptions of the results.

Helping formulate propositions in forensic DNA analysis

The Bayesian paradigm is the preferred approach to evidence interpretation. It requires the evaluation of the probability of the evidence under at least two propositions. The value of the findings (i.e., our LR) will depend on these propositions and the case information, so it is crucial to identify which propositions are useful for the case at hand. Previously, a number of principles have been advanced and largely accepted for the evaluation of evidence. In the evaluation of traces involving DNA mixtures there may be more than two propositions possible. We apply these principles to some exemplar situations. We also show that in some cases, when there are no clear propositions or no defendant, a forensic scientist may be able to generate explanations to account for observations. In that case, the scientist plays a role of investigator, rather than evaluator. We believe that it is helpful for the scientist to distinguish those two roles.