Abstract
Editor,
Recently, Hahn et al. published the “Joint recommendations of the project group ‘Biostatistical DNA Calculations’ and the Stain Commission on the Biostatistical Evaluation of Forensic DNA Analytical Findings with Fully Continuous Models (FCM).”
While the work of the project group and commission to encourage the adoption of FCMs in Germany is to be commended, some of their recommendations are problematic, in our opinion. In this reaction, we will point out a number of issues with their analysis of FCM results and with their recommendations based on that analysis.
Recently, Hahn et al. published the “Joint recommendations of the project group ‘Biostatistical DNA Calculations’ and the Stain Commission on the Biostatistical Evaluation of Forensic DNA Analytical Findings with Fully Continuous Models (FCM).”
While the work of the project group and commission to encourage the adoption of FCMs in Germany is to be commended, some of their recommendations are problematic, in our opinion. In this reaction, we will point out a number of issues with their analysis of FCM results and with their recommendations based on that analysis.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 730-735 |
Number of pages | 6 |
Journal | Journal of Forensic Sciences |
Volume | 69 |
Issue number | 2 |
Early online date | 20 Nov 2023 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - Mar 2024 |
Keywords
- Probabilistic genotyping
- Deconvolution
- Likelihood ratio
- DNA evidence
- Forensic biostatistics