Abstract:It is believed that to build a robust reasoning logic to make probabilistic inferences in forensic science from a merely mathematical or logistical viewpoint is not enough. Mathematical logic is the positive science of reasoning and as for that it is only interested in the positive calculus of its validity, regardless any prior ontological assumption. But without a determined ontology and epistemology which imply to define the concepts that they will use, it seems difficult that the proposed scientifically correct mathematical solution be successful as a European standard for making conclusions in forensic reports because it has to be based on judicial language. Forensic experts and Courts are not interested in the development of a positive science but in a practical science: in clarifying whether certain known facts are related to a possible crime. Therefore, not only the coherence of the demonstrative logic reasoning used (logic of propositions) is important, but also the precision of the concepts used by language and consistency among them in reasoning (logic of concepts). There is a linguistic level essential for a successful communication between the forensic practitioner and the Court which is mainly related, in our opinion, to semantics and figures of speech. The first one is involved because words used in forensic conclusions often have different meanings - it is said that they are polysemic - and the second one because there is often metonymy as well. Besides, semantic differences among languages regarding words with the same etymological root add another difficulty for a better mutual understanding. The two main European judicial systems inherit a wide and deep culture related to evidence in criminal proceedings and each of them has coined their own terminology but there are other two more abstract levels such as logical and epistemological, where we can find solid arguments by which terms used at legal level on conclusions of forensic reports could be accurate and consistent for all users of an intended EU guideline. An effort has been made to elucidate the following terms: truth, certainty, uncertainty, opinion, conjecture, probability, evidence, belief, credibility, determinism, indeterminacy, cause, principle, condition, and occasion.

Bayesian Reasoning and Evidence Communication

Calculating the Likelihood Ratio for Multiple Pieces of Evidence

The Role of the Bayes Factor in the Evaluation of Evidence

The Influence of Validation Data on Logical and Scientific Interpretations of Forensic Expert Opinions

Evidential strength of categorical expert witness statements

Using evidence to make decisions

Bayesian reasoning and the prior in court: not legally normative but unavoidable

Defence Against the Modern Arts: the Curse of Statistics "Score-based likelihood ratios"

Robust Bayesianism and Likelihoodism

Learning from conditional probabilities

Likelihood Ratio as Weight of Forensic Evidence: A Metrological Perspective

Are Jurors Intuitive Statisticians? Bayesian Causal Reasoning in Legal Contexts

Using Bayes factors to limit forensic testimony to forensics: composite hypotheses

Subtleties in Bayesian decision-theoretic analysis for forensic findings: Notes on recent discussion of the role of validation study data in rational decision making

Bayesian networks and probabilistic reasoning about scientific evidence when there is a lack of data

How to Measure Evidence and Its Strength: Bayes Factors or Relative Belief Ratios?

Bayesian persuasion in lawyer-client communication

A Bayesian approach for the analysis of error rate studies in forensic science

Discounting testimony with the argument ad hominem and a Bayesian congruent prior model.

Calculation of forensic likelihood ratios: Use of Monte Carlo simulations to compare the output of score-based approaches with true likelihood-ratio values

Epistemology applied to conclusions of expert reports