Thursday May 5 Green	Auditorium Friday May 6 Bldg. 215, Rm. C103

0830	Registration + Continental Breakfast 0800	Registration

0900 Welcome introduction, goals, logistics 0830	Review of day 1, polls, question	and answer

0840	 John Buckleton:	DNA

0930 John Butler,	NIST 0925:	Firearms

1015	Break 1000	Break

1045	David Kaye,	presenting the identification findings 1030	Geoffrey Morrison:	voice

1130	- Jim Wayman,	what	is	probability 1115	Discussion Moderator: Joe Campbell,	MIT Lincoln Laboratory

1200 Lunch	(on	your own) 1200	Lunch	(on	your own)

1330 Marjan Sjerps:	Netherland	Forensic	Institute 1330	Cedric Neumann:	Similarity	based	LR models

Doug Armstrong, Marjan Sjerps , Hal Stern,	Steve	Lund

1400 Discussion

1430 Break 1500	Break

1500 JoAnn Buscaglia:	FBI	(tentative) 1530	Chris Saunders:	LR	Confidence	interval

1530	Henry Swofford Army Crime Lab (tentative) Danica Ommen, Marjan Sjerps ,	Hal	Stern,	Hari Iyer

1600	Discussion.	Moderator Bill Thompson (UC Irvine) 1700	Wrap up

1730	Adjourn 1730 Adjourn
	 	 	 	 	

		 	 	 	

	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 		

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

		 	 	

	 	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

Panel on similarity based likelihood ratio

Chair: Cedric Neumann, South Dakota	State	University

Panelists:

*	Doug Armstrong, South Dakota	State	University

*	Marjan Sjerps, Netherland Forensic Institute

*	Hal Stern, University of California at Irvine/CSAFE

*	Steven Lund, National Institute of Standards and Technology

The legal and scientific push towards the statistical quantification of the weight of forensic evidence is impeded by the complexity the various

evidence	types encountered on crime	scenes. Complex forms of forensic evidence, such as fingerprints, tool marks, shoe	prints or chemical profiles

often	live in	high	dimensional and	heterogenous spaces. The need	to	reduce the complexity of the models has resulted	in	the apparition	of a series

of ad-hoc measures of the probative value of some forms of forensic evidence, which	rely, by proxy, on	the level of similarity (or score) between	

pairs of objects, instead	of being directly based	on	sets of measurements of these objects. The appropriateness of these ad-hoc methods has been	

challenged at several occasions. The	challenges are	based on the	argument that these	methods do not address the	questions of interest to forensic

scientists	and courts, and do not provide a coherent (in the statistical sense) way of updating prior information in a Bayesian framework.

Proponents of these	methods have	made	the	argument that since	probabilities are	inherently subjective	(or personal), the	probative	values

calculated by	these methods	were merely	an expression of the personal weight assigned by	the forensic	scientist to the evidence, and therefore

were acceptable. The aim of this panel is to discuss the appropriateness of score-based	methods as a mean	to	quantify and	report the weight of

forensic evidence, and the place of	these methods in a coherent	Bayesian paradigm.

Panel on the	use	of interval quantifications for the	value	of forensic evidence

Chair: Chris Saunders, South Dakota	state	university

Panelists:

* Danica Ommen, South Dakota	State	University

*	Hari Iyer, National Institute of Standards and Technology

* Marjan Sjerps, Netherland Forensic Institute

* Hal Stern, University of California at Irvine/CSAFE

At the 2012 ENFSI meeting, Ivo	Alberink and	James Curran	proposed	an	interval quantification	of the value of evidence. This led to a	lively

discussion	on	the reasonableness of these intervals for the logical and	coherent interpretation	of forensic evidence. Geoffrey Morrison arranged for	

a	series of short presentations on this issue	at the	2015	ENFSI meeting. This resulted in a	series of papers published	in	Law, Probability, and	Risk

arguing the	validity of using these	intervals in the	formal subjective	Bayesian paradigm for evidence	interpretation. It appears that the	two groups

arguing for and against the	use	of intervals are	talking past each other, with	one group	taking a frequentist stance (or	the likelihood paradigm of	

Edwards and Royall) and the other taking a	completely subjective Bayesian view. This panel will be focused on discussing the possibility of and	

developing a common	foundation	among the participants to	be able to	discuss what an	interval estimate of the likelihood	ratio	actually means and	

its	relationship	to	the	formal	value	of	evidence	as	characterized	by	the	Bayes	Factor.