Welcome to this video of introduction of the course where we will challenge forensic science and we will discuss how science should speak to court. The overall aim of this course is to develop a critical eye on forensic science. Contrary to popular belief that science speak with certainty to court, we will show that forensic results need to be considered with care, accounting for its own uncertainties. Let us illustrate this point with a case very similar to the ones that we will study in this course. Forensic science results obtained from analysis of DNA fingerprint or from any other forensic technique may not be as certain as TV series could let one thing. Moreover, as per conclusion, in fair from forensic results are not always logically sound and categorical conclusions such as Mr. S is the source of the recovered finger mark or Mr. S and the victim are the sources of the DNA recovered on the knife handle should be scrutinized. One has to be careful because there is no such a thing as certainty, whether it is in forensic science or in the judicial system in general. Let us rewind the case against Mr. S that we have just seen. In this case, the mark was blurred, distorted and of low quality. When submitted for verification to other expert, it transpired from the case file that there was no consensus on the origin of the mark. It is known that uncertainty exist even when dealing with fingerprints because error has been made. For example, in the Mayfield case or in the Markey case. The DNA was a mixture, there was a small quantity and the profile of the minor contributor was not of good quality. So, the DNA may not even come from Mr. S and the results need to be assessed statistically. Moreover, Mr. S was a friend of the victim and had visited the victim the evening before. Therefore, considering this element, recovering a partial component in minor quantity was expected both given prosecutor point of view that Mr. S stabbed the victim and the defense point of view that Mr. S visited the victim the night before, they may have legitimately handled the knife the night before. When you were told that we had found Mr. S fingerprints and DNA on the knife, you told the science alone solve the case. Now, you know the things are not as easy as in the CSI TV show. In this course, we will present like here, cases but real ones, and we will develop a critical thinking around them. To do so because of the complexity of real cases, the course has been developed by a multidisciplinary team. Person specialize in pattern evidence in probabilistic reasoning in micro traces and DNA and decision-making. My name is Christophe Champod. I'm a full Professor of Forensic Science at the University of Lausanne. I'm a pure product of the Lausanne program. Starting in 1986 from a Bachelor to my PhD in 1995 all in forensic science. I rejoined the team in Lausanne in 2003 after a few years in the UK, where I worked for the Forensic Science service. My area of expertise is identification evidence, either based on marks and impressions or objects or DNA. I'm mainly concerned with value to be assigned to such evidence. I deal with human identification but also with identification of objects. I have been and still I'm involved in case work duties. Some of these cases will be discussed during this course. I'm Franco Taroni and I'm a full Professor of Forensic Statistics also at the University of Lausanne. I spend my time studying how probabilistic reasoning can help forensic scientist and the justice system. I focus my own interest in developing models that help us as the values of scientific evidence. I also do case work and must admit that I'm very shocked when I read expert statements such as, "Given that the relative frequency of a DNA profile is extremely rare, one over million of billions, there is no possibility at all to find another person on earth sharing this given profile." During this course, you will discover why this is an unsafe and illogical statement, and probably you will be as surprised as me to discover that some experts still present evidence in such a way. Hello, my name is Tacha Hicks and I'm responsible for the online interpretation courses. These are provided to forensic practitioners and lawyers by the organization in charge of Continuing Education of the University of Lausanne. More generally, I am a Forensic Scientist. I have done my Master and PhD studies in Lausanne. I am specialized in the interpretation of micro traces such as glass, fibers and DNA choices. Like and sometimes with Franco, I also do case work. For example, glass or DNA. In addition, I enjoy very much, collaboration with caseworkers from all institution or those that attend our courses. Hello, my name is Alex Biedermann. I'm an Associate Professor at the University of Lausanne and I research, I teach, and write about probability and decision theory for forensic evaluation of property value in the legal process. I am particularly interested in evidential reasoning and decision-making at the intersection between forensic science and the law. My work is multi-disciplinary and involves forensic science, law, and various topics in probability and decision theory and computation graphical models. For example, Bayesian networks.