November started with the organization of the Themadagen Digital Evidence for the Dutch Law Enforcement, were we had 270 participants. Furthermore as always a somewhat busy time, however this month some vacation time (since normally I work during the summer holidays). So going south to Cyprus, with nice weather.
Also thinking on forensic science for law enforcement and commercial services and issues like certification. In the Netherlands they are working on a register for certified forensic scientist, which is in the law.
There are several opinions on this development. An opinion is that forensic science for crime cases is not good as a commercial service, since it might cause issues with bias to the client who pays for the services. Others think this can be prevented within the law system by making judges, prosecutors and juries if applicable aware of this issue, and that it will also be solved within a market, as in the UK, with a forensic regulator by using appropiate scientific quality standards.
An issue which we see in England and Wales, is that the police will do more forensic work themselves, so there is no market anymore. In Germany and other countries it appears to work well with private experts.
However, with any system all people should be aware of objective forensic services, and for this reason all research for objectivation of forensic evidence is impportant, were now much effort is spend by the forensic community, in funding of research by the National Institute of Justice and of the FP7 of the European Union.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Saturday, October 23, 2010
October 2010 (2)
This week I went to Dalian, China to BIT's 1st forensic conference . It was a very nice venue and there were several tracks in parrellel. The opening ceremony was indeed impressing, also with Henry Lee, who told he was born in Taiwan, and also emphasised the importance of search strategies in forensic science.
Dr. Gerry LaPorte from the National Institute of Justice, emphasised also the culture within the forensic laboratories in the past that if you would make an error you could forget your carreer in forensic science. This is not good, since there is no room then to learn from past experiences, and improve the system. Also the implications of the NAS report will lead to more research to objectivation.
The conference had many good papers in objectivation, from speaker analysis to handwriting, cybercrime investigation to facial comparison and the limitations that exist there. It was good to see that there is more research on measuring the system and the error rate in forensic science, as well as having statistical analysis for improvement, also with the use of likelihood ratio calculations.
Dalian was also a very nice city to visit, near the waterfront, and with a fast developing center, with good transportation options, and excellent service. The confrence itself was also good for many new contacts within forensic science, and will also be organized next year.
Dr. Gerry LaPorte from the National Institute of Justice, emphasised also the culture within the forensic laboratories in the past that if you would make an error you could forget your carreer in forensic science. This is not good, since there is no room then to learn from past experiences, and improve the system. Also the implications of the NAS report will lead to more research to objectivation.
The conference had many good papers in objectivation, from speaker analysis to handwriting, cybercrime investigation to facial comparison and the limitations that exist there. It was good to see that there is more research on measuring the system and the error rate in forensic science, as well as having statistical analysis for improvement, also with the use of likelihood ratio calculations.
Dalian was also a very nice city to visit, near the waterfront, and with a fast developing center, with good transportation options, and excellent service. The confrence itself was also good for many new contacts within forensic science, and will also be organized next year.
Friday, October 01, 2010
October 2010
Last month the excellent organized meeting in Moscow of our ENFSI Forensic IT Working group. Many interesting presentations, also from Russian companies in forensic software.
I had also a court case were I had to testify in the week of the meeting, so it was a busy month, since there was also many casework which had to be finished. Also we had an excellent student who developed new and faster algorithms for PRNU comparison. And another student who did very good validation studies for PRNU (camera identification based on Photo Response Non Uniformity).
Also I received a request for posting 20 books you should read. Some of them are very good, however I miss at least a book on digital evidence, since this is becoming more important.
Currently there is also a call for project on forensic investigation of digital evidence from the European Commission in FP7, which attracts several parties.
I am also chairing the organisation of the education days in digital evidence for the Dutch police in November. The program is nearly ready, and it appears there are many new interesting developments.
I had also a court case were I had to testify in the week of the meeting, so it was a busy month, since there was also many casework which had to be finished. Also we had an excellent student who developed new and faster algorithms for PRNU comparison. And another student who did very good validation studies for PRNU (camera identification based on Photo Response Non Uniformity).
Also I received a request for posting 20 books you should read. Some of them are very good, however I miss at least a book on digital evidence, since this is becoming more important.
Currently there is also a call for project on forensic investigation of digital evidence from the European Commission in FP7, which attracts several parties.
I am also chairing the organisation of the education days in digital evidence for the Dutch police in November. The program is nearly ready, and it appears there are many new interesting developments.
Sunday, September 05, 2010
September 2010
This month is again more busy, since everything is back from vacation. This month I will go to the ENFSI Forensic IT Working group meeting in Moscow www.enfsi.eu where I am chairman of. Forensic IT relates to cybercrime, and we see that most cybercrimes crosses borders, so a strong effort from the international community is necessary also to share information an solve the crimes.
Last week I gave a talk to students about cybercrime, and the awareness of students on cybercrime seems not to be high yet. Of course the government and companies can protect us from some of the issues related with cybercrime, however it is also good to have a higher awareness with the users, so cases can be solved more rapidly. There are many efforts also from law enforcements and courts to handle more casework, and often changes of laws are necessary also to cope with it internationally.
Of course we will continue with issues such as observer bias and context effects within forensic science (article Whitman and Koppl). In science it is advised do the cases double blind. In practice some courts will send the case with no additional information to compare, however as they also discuss that the simple fact that the samples are submitted causes a bias.
Last weeks some telephone meetings as member of the Board of the AAFS. Since there is time difference between the Netherlands and the US, it meant that I had to wake up at 2 am in the morning, which I am not used to. However the last meeting was at 11 pm, so that works better. Furthermore also giving some contribution on the Interpol review on image analysis.
Last week I gave a talk to students about cybercrime, and the awareness of students on cybercrime seems not to be high yet. Of course the government and companies can protect us from some of the issues related with cybercrime, however it is also good to have a higher awareness with the users, so cases can be solved more rapidly. There are many efforts also from law enforcements and courts to handle more casework, and often changes of laws are necessary also to cope with it internationally.
Of course we will continue with issues such as observer bias and context effects within forensic science (article Whitman and Koppl). In science it is advised do the cases double blind. In practice some courts will send the case with no additional information to compare, however as they also discuss that the simple fact that the samples are submitted causes a bias.
Last weeks some telephone meetings as member of the Board of the AAFS. Since there is time difference between the Netherlands and the US, it meant that I had to wake up at 2 am in the morning, which I am not used to. However the last meeting was at 11 pm, so that works better. Furthermore also giving some contribution on the Interpol review on image analysis.
Sunday, August 01, 2010
August 2010
August is starting with more casework then usual, and also new cases that come in. It might be caused by a new law on experts in the Netherlands that delays the cases somewhat since all cases need a court order.
Also there is a new policy from Dutch government on blogging for their employees, however as far as I can see the posts that I do fit very well in this policy. The policy is limited to the common practice of blogging.
I have submitted a workshop and a paper for the AAFS before August 1st. Furthermore I am working on reviews for the IWCF International Workshop on Computational Forensics in Japan. Also some reviews for journals, which I have to finish soon.
I am also looking forward to the ENFSI Conference Forensic IT in Moscow , where we are working further on. I think there are many good contributions.
Currently we have some possibilities for students to do a project on Image Analysis and camera Identification. Mostly in R&D I work with students for development and implemenation of new algorithms and also validation projects.
Also there is a new policy from Dutch government on blogging for their employees, however as far as I can see the posts that I do fit very well in this policy. The policy is limited to the common practice of blogging.
I have submitted a workshop and a paper for the AAFS before August 1st. Furthermore I am working on reviews for the IWCF International Workshop on Computational Forensics in Japan. Also some reviews for journals, which I have to finish soon.
I am also looking forward to the ENFSI Conference Forensic IT in Moscow , where we are working further on. I think there are many good contributions.
Currently we have some possibilities for students to do a project on Image Analysis and camera Identification. Mostly in R&D I work with students for development and implemenation of new algorithms and also validation projects.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Guest article
When Forensic Science Overreaches
Without a doubt, forensic science has made and continues to make huge contributions to our society. Cases that could never have otherwise been cracked are solved by creative, scientific means. But what happens when forensic science overreaches; when experts make claims that can’t be really be upheld using the strict scientific method? Do innocent people sometimes go to jail simply because your average American citizen has seen too many episodes of CSI and now believes that any statement made by a forensic expert is infallible? The answer to this question is a resounding “yes”.
Forensics as a science.
Like any other scientific field, forensic science is founded on sound scientific principals. Methods of investigation are tested both in the laboratory and the field to determine their accuracy. Statements made in court should be balanced against the limitations of the technology itself and the methods employed to gather the evidence. Unfortunately, juries seem to occasionally have a problem differentiating between deductions made by the investigator and provable facts.
When deduction is confused with fact.
In an article entitled What’s Wrong With Forensic Science that appeared in Newsweek, an example is given of a man who was convicted of a crime he never committed due to the testimony of a forensic scientist who convinced the jury she had matched his designer jeans to evidence at the crime scene. This was in 1989 before the widespread use of DNA evidence. He was acquitted when law enforcement found that his DNA did not match the samples taken at the crime scene. Unfortunately, he wasn’t freed until 2008. The jury had failed to question the deductive process employed by the forensic investigator.
What jurors need to know.
It is paramount for potential jurists to realize that forensic scientists, as humans, can
make mistakes. They can interpret information in the wrong way. They can see connections that aren’t there. A footprint linked to shoes with a certain speck of mud on them should not a guilty verdict make.
Bio: Alexis Bonari is a freelance writer and blog junkie. She is currently a resident blogger at onlinedegrees.org, researching accredited online degree programs. In her spare time, she enjoys square-foot gardening, swimming, and avoiding her laptop.
Without a doubt, forensic science has made and continues to make huge contributions to our society. Cases that could never have otherwise been cracked are solved by creative, scientific means. But what happens when forensic science overreaches; when experts make claims that can’t be really be upheld using the strict scientific method? Do innocent people sometimes go to jail simply because your average American citizen has seen too many episodes of CSI and now believes that any statement made by a forensic expert is infallible? The answer to this question is a resounding “yes”.
Forensics as a science.
Like any other scientific field, forensic science is founded on sound scientific principals. Methods of investigation are tested both in the laboratory and the field to determine their accuracy. Statements made in court should be balanced against the limitations of the technology itself and the methods employed to gather the evidence. Unfortunately, juries seem to occasionally have a problem differentiating between deductions made by the investigator and provable facts.
When deduction is confused with fact.
In an article entitled What’s Wrong With Forensic Science that appeared in Newsweek, an example is given of a man who was convicted of a crime he never committed due to the testimony of a forensic scientist who convinced the jury she had matched his designer jeans to evidence at the crime scene. This was in 1989 before the widespread use of DNA evidence. He was acquitted when law enforcement found that his DNA did not match the samples taken at the crime scene. Unfortunately, he wasn’t freed until 2008. The jury had failed to question the deductive process employed by the forensic investigator.
What jurors need to know.
It is paramount for potential jurists to realize that forensic scientists, as humans, can
make mistakes. They can interpret information in the wrong way. They can see connections that aren’t there. A footprint linked to shoes with a certain speck of mud on them should not a guilty verdict make.
Bio: Alexis Bonari is a freelance writer and blog junkie. She is currently a resident blogger at onlinedegrees.org, researching accredited online degree programs. In her spare time, she enjoys square-foot gardening, swimming, and avoiding her laptop.
Sunday, June 27, 2010
July 2010
Last week I testified in a court case on images, and as usual people become confused with the things they see on CSI and the forensic examination of images and video. I often have to explain that sometimes the image processing which is shown at CSI is not realistic, since we have to cope with the limitation of the sensors, and they have a limited resolution. Often on CCTV it is difficult to do a proper forensic comparison of faces and other objects, and a limited conclusion can be drawn from it. However, there are exceptions.
It is getting summer now, and I do not have any backlog anymore in casework, so we can schedule better, however sometimes cases come in at unexpected moments, and it can change very soon. We are also working on new work for the camera identification, as well as forensic examinations of colours from objects. Before August 1st, I will also propose one or two papers, and perhaps a workshop for next years AAFS www.aafs.org meeting. Furthermore, we are currently working on the ENFSI Forensic IT Working group meeting in Moscow in September www.enfsi.org .
It is getting summer now, and I do not have any backlog anymore in casework, so we can schedule better, however sometimes cases come in at unexpected moments, and it can change very soon. We are also working on new work for the camera identification, as well as forensic examinations of colours from objects. Before August 1st, I will also propose one or two papers, and perhaps a workshop for next years AAFS www.aafs.org meeting. Furthermore, we are currently working on the ENFSI Forensic IT Working group meeting in Moscow in September www.enfsi.org .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)