Coon Meredith, Busey Thomas
Aver LLC, USA.
Indiana University, Bloomington, USA.
Forensic Sci Int Synerg. 2025 Jul 23;11:100628. doi: 10.1016/j.fsisyn.2025.100628. eCollection 2025 Dec.
Friction ridge examiners report conclusions to palm impression comparisons similarly to fingerprint impression comparisons, although several key differences exist. These include an extensive search process in palm impressions, differences in minutiae rarity, and orientation challenges that most fingerprint comparisons do not require. Most US laboratories use a three-conclusion scale that includes Identification, Exclusion, and Inconclusive, which have not been calibrated against the actual strength of the evidence in palmprint comparisons. To measure the strength of the evidence of palmprint impressions, the present work constructs likelihood ratios using an ordered probit model based on distributions of examiner responses in an error rate study. Many likelihood ratios calculated are quite modest and the current articulation scales may overestimate the strength of support for same source propositions by up to five orders of magnitude. These likelihood ratios help calibrate the articulation language and may offer an alternative to categorical reporting scales.
与指纹比对类似，摩擦嵴纹鉴定人员报告掌纹比对的结论，不过存在一些关键差异。这些差异包括掌纹中广泛的搜索过程、细节特征稀有度的差异以及大多数指纹比对不需要面对的方向挑战。美国大多数实验室使用包括认定、排除和无法确定在内的三结论量表，而这些量表并未根据掌纹比对中证据的实际强度进行校准。为了衡量掌纹印记证据的强度，本研究基于错误率研究中鉴定人员反应的分布，使用有序概率模型构建似然比。计算出的许多似然比相当适度，当前的表述量表可能会将对同一来源命题支持的强度高估多达五个数量级。这些似然比有助于校准表述语言，并可能为分类报告量表提供一种替代方案。
