Abstract
Forensic scientists need to express their conclusions in language which is clear, understandable and not open to misinterpretation. Over the years several authors have considered the difficulties of conveying probability estimates verbally to non-scientists. In this paper, statements written by forensic scientists from different disciplines are compared. Even though the statements differ widely because of the different types of analytical work carried out, each may be placed in one of four categories. Ways in which forensic scientists might improve readers' understanding of their statements are discussed. There is a need for a dialogue between forensic scientists, police officers, lawyers and the judiciary to try and reduce mutual incomprehension.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
