4.3 Article

Statistical basis for positive identification in forensic anthropology

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY
卷 131, 期 1, 页码 15-26

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ajpa.20393

关键词

Bayesian statistics; likelihood ratios; forensic anthropology; forensic odontology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Forensic scientists are often expected to present the likelihood of DNA identifications in US courts based on comparative population data, yet forensic anthropologists tend not to quantify the strength of an osteological identification. Because forensic anthropologists are trained first and foremost as physical anthropologists, they emphasize estimation problems at the expense of evidentiary problems, but this approach must be reexamined. In this paper, the statistical bases for presenting osteological and dental evidence are outlined, using a forensic case as a motivating example. A brief overview of Bayesian statistics is provided, and methods to calculate likelihood ratios for five aspects of the biological profile are demonstrated. This paper emphasizes the definition of appropriate reference samples and of the population at large, and points out the conceptual differences between them. Several databases are introduced for both reference information and to characterize the population at large, and new data are compiled to calculate the frequency of specific characters, such as age or fractures, within the population at large. Despite small individual likelihood ratios for age, sex, and stature in the case example, the power of this approach is that, assuming each likelihood ratio is independent, the product rule can be applied. In this particular example, it is over three million times more likely to obtain the observed osteological and dental data if the identification is correct than if the identification is incorrect. This likelihood ratio is a convincing statistic that can support the forensic anthropologist's opinion on personal identity in court.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据