Crime investigation and the criminal trial: a three chapter paradigm of evidence

Forensic intelligence framework. Part II: Study of the main generic building blocks and challenges through the examples of illicit drugs and false identity documents monitoring

“…For instance, when the problem to prove is at stake (typical of an evaluative mindset [40]), the risk of asserting something that is absent (type I error) should be minimised since a higher expected utility is generally placed on certainty (i.e. credibility) than on integrity (i.e.…”

“…Conversely, when the problem to find is at stake (typical of an investigative [40] and intelligence mindset [10]), the risk of failing to assert something that is present or true (type II error) should be minimised since a higher expected utility is generally placed on having something to start to work with (a hypothesis to check, a lead to follow, a list of candidates resulting from a database search to process, a suspect to identify, arrest or interview) than on the reliability of information. Integrity is viewed as more important than credibility [41].…”

Intelligence-led crime scene processing. Part I: Forensic intelligence

“…The duality between the forensic evaluator and investigator [30,31] is evident when considering the framework suggested by Brodeur [5] from a general viewpoint and by Kind [32] from a forensic perspective. They argued for the existence of different types of investigations, or chapters that have their own logic in the course of the judicial process: the problem to find (identification and localisation of ''suspects''), the problem to prove (how to structure evidence) and the trial itself where evidence is presented.…”

Introduction to Statistics for Forensic Scientists

“…They are unlikely to be able to address activity-level propositions such as "The suspect broke this window," and they should resist addressing offense-level propositions such as "The suspect broke window and then robbed the house." Lucy does statisticians a service by reviving the writings of Kind (1994) and Cook et al (1998) among others in this regard. This book could also well be consulted by the potential expert witness for real-life examples on evaluating evidence and for common errors in interpretation.…”