The aim of this course is to promote critical thinking with regard to forensic science. Today, in general, most people are dazzled by the technical possibilities offered by forensic science. They somewhat live in the illusion that forensic evidence is fool proof and brings factual findings with 100% certainty. This course – given by specialists in the field – goes beyond the conventional image that is promoted through TV series such as CSI. It alerts (without alarming) the public on the limits of the techniques in order to promote a sound administration of forensic science in the criminal justice system. It allows participants to understand the importance of probabilistic reasoning in forensic science, because uncertainty is a constitutive part of forensic science. The course is constructed as a series of causes célèbres that could or have led to miscarriages of justice. Some of these cases have been part of case reviews carried out at the School of Criminal Justice of the University of Lausanne.
Challenging Forensic Science: How Science Should Speak to Court
4.9
(29 notes)
1,049 déjà inscrits !
proposé par
Université de Lausanne
Programme du cours : ce que vous apprendrez dans ce cours
Semaine
14 heures pour terminer
Week 1 - What is the "DNA" of a good forensic report ?
This first week will set the scene for the course. You will meet the instructors; learn about their background, teaching, research and casework activities. The School of Criminal Justice (University of Lausanne) will be shortly presented through a virtual visit, followed by the course objectives. The recent ENFSI guideline for evaluative reporting, used throughout the course, will be presented. ENFSI stands for the set of the good principles for writing forensic reports to be used in a court of law. The whole course aims at contrasting the practice as observed in notorious cases with the good practice promoted by the ENFSI guideline. Hence, we will start by setting out some reporting criteria that are essential to bring reliable evidence in court and explain the principles of interpretation (based on the concept of likelihood ratio) that should govern the production of any forensic evidence. The application of these principles leads to a defined way whereby the forensic scientist is entitled to speak to court.
12 vidéos (Total 124 min), 7 lectures, 1 quiz
12 vidéos
Presentation and visit of The School of Criminal Justice7 min
Course learning objectives10 min
Week 1 Introduction: What is the “DNA” of a Good Forensic Report?14 min
Forensic Science and Evaluative Reporting9 min
Uncertainty in the Criminal Trial13 min
Principles of forensic reporting (Part A): 1st Principle12 min
Principles of forensic reporting (Part B): 2nd and 3rd Principles7 min
ENFSI Guideline for Evaluative Reporting13 min
Conclusion of week 1: What is the “DNA” of a Good Forensic Report?10 min
Interview with Prof. Colin Aitken8 min
Interview with Dr. Sc. Sheila Willis8 min
7 lectures
Instructors10 min
Development Team5 min
Guests interviewed10 min
Syllabus and Grading policies10 min
Discussion forum guidelines10 min
Getting started: Break the ice !10 min
Additional literature Week 110 min
1 exercice pour s'entraîner
Week 130 min
Semaine
23 heures pour terminer
Week 2 - Elementary: source is not activity !
There is a general misconception that a piece of forensic evidence is sufficient to clinch the outcome of a case. This module aims at showing that the reality is more subtle and is intrinsically linked to the concept of hierarchy of propositions.
Cases based on DNA and gunshot residue (GSR) evidence will be analysed and discussed. First, through the Weller case we will demonstrate the DNA findings providing information towards the source of the DNA may not be at the core of the issue in the case. More and more the source of the DNA is not challenged, but how the DNA got there is.
8 vidéos (Total 132 min), 1 lecture, 1 quiz
8 vidéos
Part A - DNA recovered on a suspect (1): Hierarchy of Propositions13 min
Part A - DNA recovered on a suspect (2): the Weller Case15 min
Part B - Gunshot residues recovered on a suspect: The George case26 min
Part C - DNA recovered on a victim (1): the Butler and Nealon cases20 min
Part C - DNA recovered on a victim (2): Checklist for auditing statements8 min
Week 2 Conclusion - Elementary: Source is not Activity !5 min
Interview with Dr. Sc. CBE Ian Evett and Prof. Graham Jackson34 min
1 lecture
Additional literature Week 210 min
1 exercice pour s'entraîner
Week 230 min
Semaine
34 heures pour terminer
Week 3 - DNA is not the magic bullet
Based on international cases (Knox, Jama, Anderson and Scott) we will illustrate the potentials aspects that one needs to consider when assessing the value of DNA found in small quantity. You will be shown how one performs DNA analysis and what type of results can be produced. We will apply the ENFSI and the ISFG guidelines for evaluative reporting in the case at hand and see if the principles advocated allow avoiding misleading evidence. We will compare the situations where large quantities of blood are found to cases where low template DNA is recovered. You will learn to contrast these two situations and discover what type of results can be expected and what methods allow a balanced and robust interpretation. This first part of the course will demonstrate that very sensitive techniques require robust interpretation methods.
In the second part of the course, you will understand that with trace quantities, stringent control procedures are needed on the crime scene and in the laboratory. Indeed, pollution (or so-called contamination) is an aspect one needs to take into account. Cases (for example in Australia, the USA and England) have shown that the traces from the crime scene can be polluted at the hospital, by paramedics or in the laboratory. It is thus essential to consider this possibility, especially when DNA is the central (and only) element supporting the allegation of a person’s involvement in a crime. How to take into consideration the possibility of error/contamination when assessing the results will be presented.
12 vidéos (Total 200 min), 1 lecture, 1 quiz
12 vidéos
DNA in the lab (1): From Detection to Quantification14 min
DNA in the lab (2): From Amplification to DNA Profile21 min
Part A - The Knox and Sollecito case (1) Summary of the circumstances10 min
Part A - The Knox and Sollecito case (2) Low Template DNA13 min
Part A - The Knox and Sollecito case (3) Discussion and Conclusion19 min
Part B - Transfer and pollution (1) the Jama case10 min
Part B - Transfer and pollution: The Probability of Error/Pollution13 min
Part C - Transfer and pollution: the Anderson and Scott cases14 min
Week 3 Conclusion: DNA is not the Magic Bullet7 min
Interview with Prof. Peter Gill27 min
Interview with Prof. Pierre Margot37 min
1 lecture
Additional literature Week 310 min
1 exercice pour s'entraîner
Week 330 min
Semaine
42 heures pour terminer
Week 4 - Trials by Numbers or Numbers on Trial
This week will be dedicated to how forensic scientists should convey the value of their results. From our white room dedicated to photography, we will study famous cases - including the Dreyfus case- and see how statistics can be misused. It will allow us to discuss how statistical values ought to be presented in court. A statistician (Phil Dawid) and a legal scholar (David Kaye) will be interviewed.
The second essential topic we will present will be on fallacious reasoning, and in particular on what has been coined, more than thirty years ago, the prosecutors fallacy. Bill Thompson, the first to have described this fallacious argument used in court will be another of our guest interviewees.
8 vidéos (Total 98 min), 1 lecture, 1 quiz
8 vidéos
Part A - Statistics in Court (1): the Clark and Collins Cases13 min
Part A - Statistics in Court (2): the Clark and Collins Cases12 min
Part B - The Transposed Conditional (1): Prosecutor's Fallacy18 min
Part B - The transposed conditional (2): The Adams and the Dreyfus Cases14 min
Week 4 Conclusion: Trials by Numbers or Numbers on Trial ?3 min
Interview with Prof. David Kaye19 min
Interview with Prof. William Thompson12 min
1 lecture
Additional literature Week 410 min
1 exercice pour s'entraîner
Week 430 min
Semaine
54 heures pour terminer
Week 5: The wonderland of certainty
This week will be present the Dallagher case involving earprints, the Mayfield and the McKie cases involving fingerprints. We want to make you understand what is at stake when an expert decides to conclude to an identification. You will understand through this week that identification is not the duty of the forensic scientist and that it is a decision that must be taken by the Court. We also want to highlight the possible causes for wrong identification. And yes they do occur, even with fingerprints! We will have the privilege to listen to interviews of persons closely involved in these cases: The father of Shirley McKie as well as Brandon Mayfield and her daughter Sharia.
12 vidéos (Total 203 min), 1 lecture, 1 quiz
12 vidéos
Detection of fingermarks in the laboratory14 min
Part A - Identification with Earmarks (1): The Dallagher Case20 min
Part A - Identification with Earmarks (2): The Dallagher Case10 min
Part B - Identification with Fingermarks (1): The McKie Case10 min
Part B - Identification with Fingermarks (2): The McKie Case13 min
Part C - Identification with Fingermarks: The Mayfield Case30 min
Analysis and comparison of the fingermark in Mayfield Case9 min
Week 5 Conclusion: The Wonderland of Certainty3 min
Interview with Mr Iain McKie23 min
Interview with Dr Brandon Mayfield and Prof. Sharia Mayfield31 min
Course Conclusions19 min
1 lecture
Additional literature Week 510 min
1 exercice pour s'entraîner
Week 530 min
4.9
10 avisMeilleurs avis
Terrific course. Excellent instructors with essential guest participation and interviews. I'd very much like to see followup courses.
Excellent Course, The transcripts should also be translated to other languages for the sake of non english speaking participants.
Enseignants
Alex Biedermann
Associate ProfessorSchool of Criminal Justice - ESC
Franco Taroni
Full ProfessorSchool of Criminal Justice - ESC
Christophe Champod
Full ProfessorSchool of Criminal Justice - ESC
Tacha Hicks
ScientistSchool of Criminal Justice - ESC
À propos de Université de Lausanne
The University of Lausanne is a Swiss state university founded in 1537. It is focused on Medicine, Life Sciences, Geosciences, Environmental Sciences, Business, Humanities, Social Sciences and Sport Sciences. UNIL is a research-intensive university which encourages interdisciplinarity. It is also renowned for its innovative teaching methods.
Foire Aux Questions
Quand aurai-je accès aux vidéos de cours et aux devoirs ?
Une fois que vous êtes inscrit(e) pour un Certificat, vous pouvez accéder à toutes les vidéos de cours, et à tous les quiz et exercices de programmation (le cas échéant). Vous pouvez soumettre des devoirs à examiner par vos pairs et en examiner vous-même uniquement après le début de votre session. Si vous préférez explorer le cours sans l'acheter, vous ne serez peut-être pas en mesure d'accéder à certains devoirs.
À quoi ai-je droit si j'achète le Certificat ?
Lorsque vous achetez un Certificat, vous bénéficiez d'un accès à tout le contenu du cours, y compris les devoirs notés. Lorsque vous avez terminé et réussi le cours, votre Certificat électronique est ajouté à votre page Accomplissements. À partir de cette page, vous pouvez imprimer votre Certificat ou l'ajouter à votre profil LinkedIn. Si vous souhaitez seulement lire et visualiser le contenu du cours, vous pouvez accéder gratuitement au cours en tant qu'auditeur libre.
Quelle est la politique de remboursement ?
Une aide financière est-elle possible ?
D'autres questions ? Visitez le Centre d'Aide pour les Etudiants.
Coursera propose un accès universel à la meilleure formation au monde,
en partenariat avec des universités et des organisations du plus haut niveau, pour proposer des cours en ligne.
© 2019 Coursera Inc. Tous droits réservés.
