Strengths DNA activity
- Makes activity reporting explicit
- Makes people aware that Source and Activity level exist (and should not be confused)
- Difficult questions are addressed by experts instead of lawyers
- Helps scientists answering questions from the defence/judge in a scientific way
- Addressing more relevant questions that can help the investigation further
- Better assistance of the courts and better informed decisions
- Shows limitation of source level conclusions
- Absence of evidence can also be evaluated
- Scientifically supported
- Optimal use of the scientific evidence, put in the right perspective
- Science is developing fast - Existing Framework for evaluation (ENFSI)
- balanced reports
- provides the scientist with a tool to stay within the limits of his/her knowledge
- addresses both pros and defense alternatives - Existing Case Assessment & Interpretation (former FSS model for a structured approach of case assessment)
- Allows a weight to be assigned to the finding then the truth of 2 propositions
- Convergence of opinions/ consistency in approach
Weaknesses
- Lack of structured data for many cases
- Sharing of research data
- Lack of trained experts
- Complexity of interpretation
- Communication with lawyers/court
- doesn’t understand language used in evidence/reports
- adequate training (both legal/experts!) - Distinction of levels is sometimes hard to do
- Demand is unquantifiable
- Lack of knowledge does not stop some “experts”
- be clear on lack thereof
- consistency in approach - Requires an alternative proposition
- Difficult to transpose data from literature, even if it does exist in specific casework
- Lack of transparency (reporters should write all relevant findings in the reports also when or why a conclusion cannot be drawn)
- Lack of specific info on details of scenario’s
- implicit assumptions - poor connection to crime scene investigation (CSI) - Lack of resources (budget) because activity reporting takes time
Opportunities
- International cooperation
- Quality improvement
- reporting standards
- brings results closer to considerations of the court
- prevent misinterpretation o prevent miscarriages of justice - Initiate more training and awareness of CJS partners
- Right person doing the activity work
- It makes it easier to combine evidence
- Stimulate research and development:
- Drive the collection of the needed, relevant data
- Knowledge base
- International collaboration to acquire the data - Quality assurance based on review of cases/reports/verdicts
- Raising the general level of understanding of the report
- Public confidence
- Victim assurance
- Train CSI and detectives on gathering specific info on timing/sequence of events
Threats
- Demand v supply
- Illusion of exactness
- Judge can’t judge experts
- Poor work may induce loss of trust
- if the court doesn’t understand the role of the scientist there will be confusion or misinterpretation - Experts too passive to ask for case circumstances
- Shift of focus (bias) on ‘soft’ evidence
- Leaves more space for different interpretation of the results
- Risk of contextual bias
- Lack of awareness of crime scene people Investigate the wrong activity
- If we claim too much too early it might be inadmissible (rejected) -
- Adequate training
- Lack of funding for R&D