New Issue of International Journal of Evidence and Proof

Hat tip to Robert Richards for his alert to the following new issue of the

International Journal of Evidence and Proof

 

Volume 16 Number 1 2012
ISSN: 1365-7127  eISSN: 1740-5572

ARTICLE

The likelihood-ratio framework and forensic evidence in court: a response to R v T
Keywords: Bayesian; Bayes; Admissibility; Validity; Reliability
Geoffrey Stewart Morrison DOI: doi:10.1350/ijep.2012.16.1.390
(2012) 16 E & P 1
 ABSTRACT: In R v T the Court of Appeal concluded that the likelihood-ratio framework should not be used for the evaluation of evidence except 'where there is a firm statistical base'. The present article argues that the court's opinion is based on misunderstandings of statistics and of the likelihood-ratio framework for the evaluation of evidence. The likelihood-ratio framework is a logical framework and not itself dependent on the use of objective measurements, databases and statistical models. The ruling is analysed from the perspective of the new paradigm for forensic-comparison science: the use of the likelihood-ratio framework for the evaluation of evidence; a strong preference for the use of objective measurements, databases representative of the relevant population, and statistical models; and empirical testing of the validity and reliability of the forensic-comparison system under conditions reflecting those of the case at trial.

---

Is reliability sufficient? The Law Commission and expert evidence in international and interdisciplinary perspective (Part 1)
Keywords: Law and science; Forensic science; Expertise; Admissibility; Daubert;Reform; Trial safeguards; Proof; Opinion; Judging
Gary Edmond DOI: doi:10.1350/ijep.2012.16.1.391
(2012) 16 E & P 30
ABSTRACT: This article offers a critical appraisal of the Law Commission's Report, Expert Evidence in Criminal Proceedings in England and Wales (2011), and related proposals for reform. Drawing upon interdisciplinary research and empirical studies from other common law jurisdictions it suggests that the introduction of a reliability-based admissibility standard for expert opinion evidence, even in conjunction with provision for recourse to court-appointed experts, is unlikely to generate the kinds of changes required to improve the quality of incriminating forensic science and medicine evidence or align criminal justice practice with espoused goals and principles.

---

Due process and the admission of expert evidence on recovered memory in historic child sexual abuse cases: lessons from America
Keywords: Expert evidence; Recovered memory; Due process; Historic child sexual abuse prosecutions; the United States; Ireland; England and Wales; Law Commission
Sinead Ring DOI: doi:10.1350/ijep.2012.16.1.392
(2012) 16 E & P 66
ABSTRACT: This article reviews the decisions of the US state courts on the admissibility of expert testimony on recovered memory in historic child sexual abuse prosecutions. Unlike their English and Irish counterparts, most US courts scrutinise the reliability of expert evidence on recovered memory. In examining the US decisions the article explores the challenges posed to the criminal process by the contested scientific status of recovered memory theory. It sets out due process arguments why expert evidence on the topic should not be admitted in a criminal trial.

---

CASE NOTE

Expert evidence on the reliability of eyewitness identification-some observations on the justifications for exclusion: Gage v HM Advocate
Keywords: Expert evidence; Eyewitness identification; Admissibility; Common knowledge; Probative value
Andrew Roberts      93
DOI: doi:10.1350/ijep.2012.16.1.393

CASE COMMENTARIES

Case Commentaries
Rosemary Pattenden      106
DOI: doi:10.1350/ijep.2012.16.1.394

NOTICEBOARD

Noticeboard
Rosemary Pattenden      128
DOI: doi:10.1350/ijep.2012.16.1.395
 

  &&& 
The dynamic evidence page
Evidence marshaling software MarshalPlan
It's here: the law of evidence on Spindle Law.

See also this post and this post.

Bogus "Repressed Memory" Theory Still Lives in Some Places

As I was reading online newspaper articles this morning, an item about David Clohessy, national director of SNAP -- Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests -- caught my attention. It seems that he and SNAP are resisting a court order that he and SNAP disclose communications they may have had, in violation of a gag order, about communications with the press and alleged victims of sexual abuse. This court order, of course, raises First Amendment issues. However, what caught my attention is that the controversy arose out of a civil action in which the plaintiff is apparently relying on the theory of "repressed memory." This is most distressing -- inasmuch it is fairly obvious to any halfway rational person that the theory of repressed & recovered memory is bogus. See, e.g., this article in the Skeptic's Dictionary.

In the underlying civil action the John Doe plaintiff apparently alleges he was abused "in the 1970s." So he allegedly forgot about the sexual abuse for roughly 40 years. Who really believes this sort of stuff? (Well, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court apparently does. Compare this post.)

N.B. SNAP still holds national conventions. (The 2012 convention, SNAP reports, will be in Chicago.) A major focus of such conventions seems to be to encourage victims to come forward. It is possible SNAP's encouragement is a bit too brisk. (One wonders whether in 2020 some person at a SNAP national convention will suddenly remember being abused by a priest in the 1970s. I suppose so!)

 &&& 
The dynamic evidence page
Evidence marshaling software MarshalPlan
It's here: the law of evidence on Spindle Law. See also this post and this post.

Slate on Elizabeth Loftus, Memory & the Myth of Repressed & Recovered Memory

Slate is publishing a fascinating series of articles on Professor Elizabeth Loftus and her studies of memory and repressed and recovered memory. The series starts here. If you claim to be a well-educated person, you should read these articles.

But the articles overdo the praise for Loftus: she cannot be given sole credit for debunking "repressed and recovered memory." (In any event, U.S. States and jurisdictions have not yet reached a consensus that "repressed and recovered memory" is junk science. Social psychoanalysis suggests that the political and social pressures for the opposite conclusion remain strong -- too strong. For example, in Massachusetts the careers of a number of prominent politicians were partially built on the zealous pursuit of some cases based substantially on "repressed and recovered memories.")

&&&
The dynamic evidence page
It's here: the law of evidence on Spindle Law. See also this post and this post.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Rejects Attack on Junk Science of Repressed and Recovered Memory

The appeal of the defrocked priest and admitted child abuser Paul Shanley was not an appealing one. Perhaps this explains why the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court rejected an attack on the use of "repressed and recovered memory" in Paul Shanley's criminal trial. See Commonwealth v. Shanley, 455 Mass. 752, 766, 919 N.E.2d 1254, 1266 (Jan. 15, 2010).

Is it a "technicality" that although Shanley years earlier had admitted sexually abusing some other minors, he probably did not commit the crime of which he was convicted?

I don't profess to understand the psyche (if it has one) of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. But the upshot is that Massachusetts is now saddled for yet some time with the junk science of "repressed memory."

&&&

The dynamic evidence page

It's here: the law of evidence on Spindle Law. See also this post and this post.