Analisis evidencia

Inferencia

The intelligence analyst: an intelligence scenario “from the top-down”

The generation of a new hypothesis from observations we make is frequently

said to involve “bottom-up” reasoning; generation of new potential evidence from
a hypothesis is said to involve “top-down” reasoning. In intelligence analysis, as in
law, both forms of reasoning are necessary.
An important area of intelligence analysis is called “Indications and Warnings”

Usar dos hipotesis mutualmente excluyentes

. Introduction: connecting the dots
Everyone draws inferences from evidence. The dog barks, you infer that someone
is approaching the house; a loud horn sounds behind me, I infer that the driver
is impatient or angry

FLINTS (Forensic Led Intelligence System),

a computer-based tool for investigating multiple crimes, and making links between
crimes that were not previously thought to be connected.
3

of “connecting the dots.” Before the terrorists

used airplanes as flying bombs to destroy the World Trade Center and damage the
Pentagon, the FBI had received information that several foreign nationals from the
Mideast, with little or no prior training or experience, had enrolled in different
civilian flying schools to learn how to fly large commercial aircraft.
 Procedimiento conectar los puntos

Originar razones de sospecha: si pepito paga en efectivo es porque busca que no haya registro.
Ejemplo del 9/11 cuando el fbi se dio cuenta que había árabes que buscaban aprender a volar
aviones
The size of the group, the seriousness of the danger, and the relative plausibility
of the scenario, given this information, should have suggested to the analyst that
hypothesis vii deserves the highest priority, but that hypothesis v also needed to
be pursued as a matter of urgency. Of course, the possibility of further hypotheses
must be kept open. In focusing on hypothesis vii, there would have been some fairly
obvious first lines of inquiry: for example, to what group(s) or organizations(s) do
the students belong?

Muchas veces se pueden hacer muchos escenarios debido a las pistas. Hay que buscar los
escenarios coherentes y los mas variados posibles.
The value of a new hypothesis to an investigator rests not only on its ability
to explain evidence she already has; it may also allow her to generate new lines of
inquiry that have not been suggested by other hypotheses she had been entertaining.
Credibilidad evidencia: revizar la evidencia

Evidencia tangible

Autenticidad

i. Accuracy/Sensitivity
. Sensing devices of all sorts can supply tangible evidence
in the form of images such as photographs and other sensor records. The credibility
issue here concerns whether a sensing device provides the degree of resolution
necessary for us to discriminate among possible events that may be recorded on
the image.

iii. Reliability
. A reliable process is one that is repeatable, dependable or consis-
tent. For some kinds of tangible evidence, reliability refers to the operating charac-
teristics of the device used to generate it.
Accuracy/Sensitivity
. Sensing devices of all sorts can supply tangible evidence
in the form of images such as photographs and other sensor records. The credibility
issue here concerns whether a sensing device provides the degree of resolution
necessary for us to discriminate among possible events that may be recorded on
the image.

he credibility of testimonial evidence

testigo presencial

alguien se los dijo

lo infiere

In legal terms, an ordinary witness is competent if he or she was in a position to

make an observation, could understand what was being observed,

On the probative force of evidence

The probative force of an item or body of evidence answers the question: “How strong is this evidence in favoring or
disfavoring some penultimate probandum in the case at hand?”

Clasificar la evidencia de acuerdo a su relevancia

The first rule reflects the fact that a probandum or proposition on which an item
of evidence may seem direct depends on how we have structured the argument based
on this evidence. Second, every argument can be further decomposed to reveal new
sources of doubt or uncertainty. Thus, there is arbitrariness associated with any
identification of an item of evidence as being direct.

abductive, inductive, and deductive

abudtive

You hear your baby crying and notice a rather nasty smell. You abduce that the baby needs to have
its poop dealt with in a suitable manner.

Application of the principles in legal disputes

An offer of evidence always involves one (or more) of the probative processes Wig-
more described – assertion, explanation, rival, denial, or corroboration. But the
logical structure of the argument from evidential data to proposed conclusion will
differ in ways unrelated to the probative process being invoked.

Conjunction

Compound (or complex) propositions.

Esta el ultimate probanda y muchos penultimate probanda

Corroboration

It is important to recognize the distinction between convergence in general and

corroboration in particular. Corroboration in this narrow sense focuses the analysis
on credibility.
Catenate inferences.
Catenate inferences are “chains” of inferences, a condition
that exists when there is more than one step in the reasoning necessary to show

An argument from an
autoptic proference to a fact of consequence almost invariably involves (and can
always be restated to involve) catenate rather than simple inferences. For example,
the first step in any inferential chain from a testimonial assertion must always be
the truth of the matter asserted – e.g., from the fact that W2 testified

Analysis
What is a key-list?
A key-list is a numbered list of propositions of three kinds.
First, there are the propositions developed and refined at the macroscopic level –
the ultimate and penultimate probanda and propositions identified as necessary in
light of the provisional theory adopted, e.g., that OJS had a motive to murder NBS.
Second, there are propositions that can be directly inferred from the evidential data,
e.g., from an autoptic proference of the 2003 tax return, we can infer that the tax
return reported that RA only earned $125,000 in 2003. Third, the list includes all
the intermediate proponent’s assertions, opponent’s explanatory, rival, and denial
propositions, and any propositions the proponent may use to undermine the oppo-
nent’s propositions or to strengthen her assertion in light of the opponent’s attacks.

b.
Formulating the propositions
. The first step is to identify those items of evi-
dential data that are available to be offered and convert them into simple proposi-
tions – i.e. propositions involving only one condition and susceptible to the response
“true/false,” “proven/not proven,” “probable/not probable,” etc. The next step is to
identify each inferred proposition that is necessary to show how an evidential propo-
sition supports or undermines a fact of consequence – a penultimate probandum or
the credibility of a witness’s assertion. The process is not as mechanical as it might
seem. The analyst must confront two types of difficulty.
First, formulating the propositions on a key-list involves more than merely mak-
ing explicit what was perhaps formerly implicit or only partially expressed.

Second, identifying and formulating the intermediate inferential propositions

necessary to establish the relevance of an evidential proposition to a fact of conse-
quence (a penultimate probandum or a proposition bearing upon the credibility
of a testimonial assertion or an item of tangible evidence) is ordinarily the hardest
and most important task. For example, the endorsement by the Las Vegas branch
of Able’s bank on the $25,000 check that Richard Able received from the New York

c.
Selecting propositions to be included
. From the universe of data available, the
key-list may (and probably must) be limited to what is relevant to the ultimate
probandum. But visualizing what is relevant requires an intuitive application of the
inductive process we are trying to make explicit.

Selection also requires more than sorting out the relevant from the irrelevant.
A proposition is relevant if it has some probative connection with an ultimate
probandum, that is, it tends to support, tends to negate, or tends to explain that
probandum either directly or indirectly.

d.
Ordering the propositions on the key-list
.

Wigmore chart

Step 6.
Preparing the chart(s)
.
After clarifying your standpoint, always start by charting the ultimate and
penultimate probanda and work “down” as far as your provisional theory allows.

Simbolos
 Outlines, chronologies, and narrative

A. The outline method of analysis

One of the strengths of the outline method is its utility in organizing the evidence
and arguments. In the outline, each of the penultimate probanda is a main heading
in the outline. For example in the Simpson case, the outline would begin:

B. Analytic devices: chronologies and narratives

Chronologies can be used to test completeness of an analysis at any stage of an
investigation. In most cases, it is useful to construct three kinds of chronologies –
witness-by-witness chronologies, document and other tangible evidence chronolo-
gies, and a master chronology. A witness chronology puts every event to which
a witness could testify in chronological order. This serves three purposes. It pro-
vides a basis for assessing the completeness and consistency of the witness’s likely
testimony. Are there additional facts that this witness should know?

b. Before the close of discovery and investigation

In the early stages of a dispute and throughout the investigative stages, abductive rea-
soning is at least as important as inductive and deductive reasoning. Like Kemelman
in “The Nine Mile Walk” (above, page 11) or the police cadet in “An investigation”
(above, page 40), the lawyer is a detective looking for possibilities suggested by the
evidence or the nature of the case. In the early stages, the real danger is that the
lawyer will settle too quickly upon a single theory of the case and, often for that
reason, will fail to identify or consider additional sources of evidence that might be

A primary task in any litigation is to develop a cohesive theory and theme of the case.
The theory should be that explanation of the facts which shows logic requires your side
to win and the theme should be that explanation of the facts which shows the moral
force is on your side.

Tener la lista de persnajes y la lista de eventos relevantes

 Evaluating evidence

B. Evaluating the weight and probative force of evidence

The probative force of this bullet evidence depends on the relative sizes of the
two likelihoods shown in Figure 9.1. If we believe Likelihood 1 is greater than
Likelihood 2, then we are saying that this bullet evidence favors the proposition that
it was Sacco who shot Berardelli. How strongly the evidence favors Sacco shooting
Berardelli depends on how many times larger is Likelihood 1 than Likelihood 2

3. Baconian probability and completeness of evidential coverage

Centuries ago, Sir Francis Bacon proposed the idea that we would be wasting our
time trying to prove some general hypothesis or proposition just by accumulating
evidential instances favorable to this hypothesis. Regardless of how many results
favorable to this hypothesis we have accumulated, all it takes is one demonstrably
unfavorable result to disprove this hypothesis. What Bacon argued was that we would
be far better off performing evidential tests designed to eliminate any hypothesis
we are considering. The hypothesis that best resists our most concerted efforts to
eliminate it, as well as any other hypotheses, is the one in which we should have
increasing confidence. This strategy has become known as
induction by elimination
.
The best known development of Bacon’s method was by John Stuart Mill (1843).
wo things. First, the strong part of our inferential limb depends on how much
credible evidence we have that is favorable to hypothesis H. Second, the weak part
of our inferential limb depends on how many questions regarding the likeliness
of any of our hypotheses remain unanswered by the evidence we have. Baconian
probabilities take both of these matters into account.

Cohen’s system of Baconian probability is the only system that takes specific
account of how completely the evidence we have covers matters recognized to be
relevant in the testing of hypotheses we entertain.

4. Wigmore and the fuzzy weight of evidence

Wigmore was no probabilist, but he did understand that the linkages between
probanda in chains of reasoning are probabilistic in nature. This is why we have
said that a chain of reasoning involves sources of doubt or uncertainty. He described
the strength of these probabilistic linkages in words rather than numbers.

Necessary but dangerous: generalizations

and stories in argumentation about facts
1
We have seen that generalizations are almost always necessary as warrants for
every step in inferential reasoning, but that they can often be shown to be the
weakest points in an argument (Chapter 3). Similarly, we have seen that stories are
not just an alternative to analytical approaches such as the chart method, but rather
complement them in important ways (Chapter 6).

A. Generalizations
1. Reprise and introduction
Generalizations are warrants that serve as the “glue” that links an item of evidence
to a particular interim or ultimate
probandum
by showing that it is relevant

It is important to distinguish between the strength of support for a generalization

and its probative force if it is accepted as true. Here we find an interesting feature
of the operation of generalizations in the kind of argument with which we are
concerned: the more cautious a generalization, the more plausible it is likely to be,
but the weaker the support that it gives to the probandum.
3

. Types of generalizations
Generalizations can be categorized in different ways for different purposes. In
Chapter 3, we identified three axes that could be used in classifying generaliza-
tions–agener
ality (or level of abstraction) axis, a reliability (or degree of certainty)
axis, and a source (or basis) axis.

At one end of the commonality spectrum are generalizations that are shared only
by a small number of people.

t the other end of the spectrum are generalizations that are universally or
widely shared within the relevant community.

From the standpoint of a lawyer, it is useful to

distinguish between two main types: (a) case-specific generalizations contrasted
with (b) background generalizations

a. Case-specific generalizations
These may be used explicitly or implicitly in argument in a particular case. They
may include descriptions about personal habits or character, or local practices (how
newly born babies are labeled in this hospital), or allegations of a general nature, such
as “The employer-defendant in this case regularly discriminated against women in
its employment practices.”
Case-specific background knowledge may be a mixture of particular and general
information, such as Welt’s use of “local knowledge”

Especially if they are supported by evidence, case-specific generalizations tend

to push out or trump background generalizations.
background generalizations
In the absence of experts or other direct evidence, we fall back on background
generalizations

c. Scientific knowledge and expertise

Scientific generalizations are based upon scientific knowledge and research. They
vary in terms of their reliability. There are those based upon the “laws of science”

d. General knowledge
General knowledge generalizations are generalizations that would be generally
accepted as well established in a given community: Palm trees, rain, and high humid-
ity are common in Miami,

. Experience-based generalizations
Sometimes people confidently claim to “know” something on the basis of firsthand
experience. Some such experience-based generalizations may be widely shared in
a community.

Generalizations are dangerous

18
are implicit or unexpressed. For example:
i The warranting generalization may be
indeterminate
in respect of:
a frequency or universality (all/most/some);
b level of abstraction;
c defeasibility (exceptions, qualifications);
d precision or “fuzziness”;

Errors en la historias:
Relevance is the most important mechanism of exclusion.

(causation, identity, and criminal intent).

349
http://codolc.com/files/c8/68/c868185b50e42e255050a5d3feafbcef.pdf