![handle is hein.journals/lawprisk19 and id is 1 raw text is: Law, Probability and Risk (2020) 19, 1-20 doi:10.1093/lpr/mgaa004
Advance Access publication on April 28, 2020
Defence against the modern arts: the curse of statistics: Part I-FRStat
CEDRIC NEUMANNt
Associate Professor of Statistics, South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD 57007, USA and
Two N's Forensics, Inc. Brookings, SD 57006, USA
[Received on 5 August 2019; revised on 4 February 2020; accepted on 24 February 2020]
For several decades, legal and scientific scholars have argued that conclusions from forensic examina-
tions should be supported by statistical data and reported within a probabilistic framework. Multiple
models have been proposed to quantify and express the probative value of forensic evidence.
Unfortunately, the use of statistics to perform inferences in forensic science adds a layer of complexity
that most forensic scientists, court offices and lay individuals are not armed to handle. Many applica-
tions of statistics to forensic science rely on ad hoc strategies and are not scientifically sound. The opa-
city of the technical jargon that is used to describe these probabilistic models and their results, and the
complexity of the techniques involved make it very difficult for the untrained user to separate the wheat
from the chaff. This series of article is intended to help forensic scientists and lawyers recognize limita-
tions and issues in tools proposed to interpret the results of forensic examinations. This article focuses
on the tool proposed by the Latent Print Branch of the U.S. Defense Forensic Science Center (DFSC)
and called FRStat. In this article, I explore the compatibility of the results outputted by FRStat with the
language used by the DFCS to report the conclusions of their fingerprint examinations, as well as the
appropriateness of the statistical modelling underpinning the tool and the validation of its performance.
Keywords: FRStat; fingerprint; statistics; validation.
1. Introduction
For more than half a century, legal and scientific scholars have argued that conclusions from forensic
examinations should be supported by statistical data and reported within a probabilistic framework.
Unfortunately, the use of statistics to perform inferences in forensic science adds a layer of complexity
to forensic examinations that most forensic scientists, court officers and lay individuals are not armed
to handle. There is no doubt that data, statistical analyses and probabilistic models are required to sup-
port all aspects of forensic examinations. However, there is a curse associated with the use of statistics
and probability in forensic science (as well as in any other field): the opacity of the technical jargon
used to describe probabilistic models and the results of statistical analyses, and the complexity of the
techniques involved make it very difficult for the untrained user to separate the wheat from the chaff.
As a result, a poor use of statistics and probability theory may go unnoticed, give an unwarranted var-
nish of legitimacy to a given forensic examination and unduly increase the level of trust that forensic
scientists, court officers and lay individuals may associate with this examination.
Email: Cedric.Neumann@me.com
© The Author(s) [2020]. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/lawprisk19&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most