The Psychology of Forensic Evidence

2010

Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright, please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.

2017

Between 26 and 29 April 2011 a four-day interdisciplinary workshop “Science meets Law” was held at the Lorentz Center (University of Leiden, NL). It was organised by the Lorentz Center in collaboration with the Netherlands Institute for Advanced Study in the Humanities and Social Sciences (“NIAS”, Wassenaar, NL). The programme was prepared by Richard Gill and Johannes F. Nijboer and connected to Richard Gill’s 2010-2011 stay at NIAS as Distinguished Lorentz Fellow. This document was prepared by three of us and represents our personal synthesis of the discussions which took place during the meeting. Comments are welcome.

Nov, 22 nd Allard Pierson Museum (Amsterdam) http://allardpiersonmuseum.nl/ Nov, 23 rd University Library Singel (Amsterdam)

Expert Evidence and Scientific Proof in Criminal Trials, 2017

How should forensic scientists and other expert witnesses present their evidence in court? What kinds and quality of data can experts properly draw on in formulating their conclusions? In an important recent decision in R. v T 1 the Court of Appeal revisited these perennial questions, with the complicating twist that the evidence in question incorporated quantified probabilities, not all of which were based on statistical data. Recalling the sceptical tenor of previous judgments addressing the role of probability in the evaluation of scientific evidence, 2 the Court of Appeal in R. v T condemned the expert's methodology and served notice that it should not be repeated in future, a ruling which rapidly reverberated around the forensic science community causing consternation, and even dismay, amongst many seasoned practitioners. 3 At such moments of perceived crisis it is essential to retain a sense of perspective. There is, in fact, much to welcome in the Court of Appeal's judgment in R. v T, starting with the court's commendable determination to subject the quality of expert evidence adduced in criminal litigation to searching scrutiny. English courts have not consistently risen to this challenge, sometimes accepting rather too easily the validity of questionable scientific techniques. 4 However, the Court of Appeal's reasoning in R. v T is not always easy to follow, and there are certain passages in the judgment which, taken out of context, might even appear to confirm forensic scientists' worst fears. This article offers a constructive reading of R. v T,

Theoretical Criminology, 2017

Journal of Forensic Sciences, 2010

Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 2013

FORENSIC SCIENCE IN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 2021

Forensic science in criminal procedure is a textbook that stemmed from the need to compile scientific knowledge of various scientific disciplinesforensic medicine, criminology, and medical criminology. The multidisciplinary nature of this scientific discipline has often been an obstacle for the publication of scientific works in this field in the past. In fact, legal experts hesitate to enter the domain of medical science due to the lack of expertise, while on the other side medical experts exclusively concentrate on the achievements of medical sciences. However, there is a practical need for the unification of scientific developments in such divergent scientific disciplines. For all those reasons, written sources in this area are commonly outdated, obsolete, and sporadic. The author's purpose was to expand the level of works in the field and introduce new scientific knowledge and technological developments achieved so far. The textbook would be useful for law school, forensic science, and medical students on one side and could also be used by persons conducting activities related to crime detection, crime scene investigation, expert evaluations, autopsies, etc. Author Academic prof. dr. Nedeljko Stanković K CHAPTER I THEORETICAL-METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH 1. THE NOTION OF FORENSIC SCIENCE…………………………………25

Science and Justice, 2017

Human factors and their implications for forensic science have attracted increasing levels of interest across criminal justice communities in recent years. Initial interest centred on cognitive biases, but has since expanded such that knowledge from psychology and cognitive science is slowly infiltrating forensic practices more broadly. This article highlights a series of important findings and insights of relevance to forensic practitioners. These include research on human perception, memory, context information, expertise, decision-making, communication, experience , verification, confidence, and feedback. The aim of this article is to sensitise forensic practitioners (and lawyers and judges) to a range of potentially significant issues, and encourage them to engage with research in these domains so that they may adapt procedures to improve performance, mitigate risks and reduce errors. Doing so will reduce the divide between forensic practitioners and research scientists as well as improve the value and utility of forensic science evidence.

2018

This sucks