Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Sci Justice. 2016 Dec;56(6):492-497. doi: 10.1016/j.scijus.2016.07.002. Epub 2016 Jul 11.

Refining the relevant population in forensic voice comparison - A response to Hicks et alii (2015) The importance of distinguishing information from evidence/observations when formulating propositions.

Author information

1
Morrison & Enzinger, Independent Forensic Consultants, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada & Corvallis, OR, USA; Department of Linguistics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Electronic address: geoff-morrison@forensic-evaluation.net.
2
Morrison & Enzinger, Independent Forensic Consultants, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada & Corvallis, OR, USA.
3
School of Criminal Investigation, Southwest University of Political Science and Law, Chongqing, China; Chongqing Institutes of Higher Education Forensic Technology Research Centre, Chongqing, China.

Abstract

Hicks et alii [Sci. Just. 55 (2015) 520-525. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2015.06.008] propose that forensic speech scientists not use the accent of the speaker of questioned identity to refine the relevant population. This proposal is based on a lack of understanding of the realities of forensic voice comparison. If it were implemented, it would make data-based forensic voice comparison analysis within the likelihood ratio framework virtually impossible. We argue that it would also lead forensic speech scientists to present invalid unreliable strength of evidence statements, and not allow them to conduct the tests that would make them aware of this problem.

KEYWORDS:

Forensic voice comparison; Formulating propositions; Likelihood ratio; Relevant population; Reliability; Validity

PMID:
27914557
DOI:
10.1016/j.scijus.2016.07.002
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center