Geoffrey Stewart Morrison

2024

Bi-Gaussianized calibration of likelihood ratios

Morrison, G. S., 11 Apr 2024, In: Law, Probability and Risk. 23, 1, 34 p., mgae004.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Open Access

File

Speaker identification in courtroom contexts – Part III: Groups of collaborating listeners compared to forensic voice comparison based on automatic-speaker-recognition technology

Bali, A. S., Basu, N., Weber, P., Rosas-Aguilar, C., Edmond, G., Martire, K. A. & Morrison, G. S., Jul 2024, In: Forensic Science International. 360, 13 p., 112048.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Open Access

File

2023

A response to Busey & Klutzke (2022): Regarding subjective assignment of likelihood ratios

Morrison, G. S., Jan 2023, In: Science and Justice. 63, 1, p. 61-62

Research output: Contribution to journal › Letter, comment/opinion or interview

Open Access

File

A single test pair does not a method validation make: A response to Kirchhübel et al. (2023)

Morrison, G. S., 17 Mar 2023, In: Science and Justice. 63, 3, p. 327–329 3 p.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Letter, comment/opinion or interview › peer-review

Open Access

Speaker identification in courtroom contexts – Part II: Investigation of bias in individual listeners’ responses

Basu, N., Weber, P., Bali, A. S., Rosas-Aguilar, C., Edmond, G., Martire, K. A. & Morrison, G. S., Aug 2023, In: Forensic Science International. 349, 111768 p.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Open Access

File

2022

Advancing a paradigm shift in evaluation of forensic evidence: The rise of forensic data science

Morrison, G. S., May 2022, In: Forensic Science International: Synergy. 5, 100270.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Review article › peer-review

Open Access

File

A plague on both your houses: The debate about how to deal with “inconclusive” conclusions when calculating error rates

Morrison, G. S., 23 Nov 2022, In: Law, Probability and Risk. 21, 2, p. 127–129

Research output: Contribution to journal › Letter, comment/opinion or interview

Open Access

File

A strawman with machine learning for a brain: A response to Biedermann (2022) the strange persistence of (source) “identification” claims in forensic literature

Morrison, G. S., Ramos, D., Ypma, R. J., Basu, N., Bie, K. D., Enzinger, E., Geradts, Z., Meuwly, D., Vloed, D. V. D., Vergeer, P. & Weber, P., 19 May 2022, In: Forensic Science International: Synergy. 4, 2 p., 100230.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Letter, comment/opinion or interview › peer-review

Open Access

File

Forensic comparison of fired cartridge cases: Feature-extraction methods for feature-based calculation of likelihood ratios

Basu, N., Bolton-King, R. S. & Morrison, G. S., May 2022, In: Forensic Science International: Synergy. 5, 100272.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Open Access

File

Forensic voice comparison – Human-supervised-automatic approach

Morrison, G. S., Weber, P., Enzinger, E., Labrador, B., Lozano-Díez, A., Ramos, D. & González-Rodríguez, J., 1 Nov 2022, Encyclopedia of Forensic Sciences. Houck, M., Eldridge, H., Lewis, S., Lothridge, K., Reedy, P. & Wilson, L. (eds.). 3 ed. Elsevier, Vol. 2. p. 720-736 17 p.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Published conference output › Entry for encyclopedia/dictionary

Forensic voice comparison – Overview

Morrison, G. S. & Zhang, C., 1 Nov 2022, Encyclopedia of Forensic Sciences. Houck, M., Eldridge, H., Lewis, S., Lothridge, K., Reedy, P. & Wilson, L. (eds.). 3 ed. Elsevier, Vol. 2. p. 737-750 14 p.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Published conference output › Entry for encyclopedia/dictionary

Speaker identification in courtroom contexts - Part I: Individual listeners compared to forensic voice comparison based on automatic-speaker-recognition technology

Basu, N., Bali, A. S., Weber, P., Rosas-Aguilar, C., Edmond, G., Martire, K. A. & Morrison, G. S., Dec 2022, In: Forensic science international. 341, 22 p., 111499.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Open Access

File

The opacity myth: A response to Swofford & Champod (2022)

Morrison, G. S., Basu, N., Enzinger, E. & Weber, P., 19 Jun 2022, In: Forensic Science International: Synergy. 5, 100275.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Open Access

File

Validations of an alpha version of the E3 Forensic Speech Science System (E3FS3) core software tools

Weber, P., Enzinger, E., Labrador, B., Lozano-díez, A., Ramos, D., González-rodríguez, J. & Morrison, G. S., 7 Mar 2022, In: Forensic Science International: Synergy. 4, 100223.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Open Access

File

2021

Calculation of likelihood ratios for inference of biological sex from human skeletal remains

Morrison, G. S., Weber, P., Basu, N., Puch-Solis, R. & Randolph-Quinney, P. S., 27 Sept 2021, In: Forensic Science International: Synergy. 3, 100202.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Open Access

File

Consensus on validation of forensic voice comparison

Morrison, G. S., Enzinger, E., Hughes, V., Jessen, M., Meuwly, D., Neumann, C., Planting, S., Thompson, W. C., van der Vloed, D., Ypma, R. J. F., Zhang, C., Anonymous, A. & Anonymous, B., May 2021, In: Science and Justice. 61, 3, p. 299-309 11 p.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Open Access

File

In the context of forensic casework, are there meaningful metrics of the degree of calibration?

Morrison, G. S., 12 Jun 2021, In: Forensic Science International: Synergy. 3, 100157.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Open Access

File

Reply to Response to Vacuous standards – subversion of the OSAC standards-development process

Morrison, G. S., Neumann, C., Geoghegan, P. H., Edmond, G., Grant, T., Ostrum, R. B., Roberts, P., Saks, M., Syndercombe Court, D., Thompson, W. C. & Zabell, S., 2021, In: Forensic Science International: Synergy. 3, 100149.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Letter, comment/opinion or interview › peer-review

Open Access

2020

Statistical models in forensic voice comparison

Morrison, G. S., Enzinger, E., Ramos, D., González-Rodríguez, J. & Lozano-Díez, A., 28 Sept 2020, Handbook of Forensic Statistics. Banks, D. L., Kafadar, K., Kaye, D. H. & Tackett, M. (eds.). CRC Press, p. 451–497

Research output: Chapter in Book/Published conference output › Chapter (peer-reviewed) › peer-review

Open Access

File

Vacuous standards – Subversion of the OSAC standards-development process

Morrison, G. S., Neumann, C. & Geoghegan, P. H., 30 Jun 2020, In: Forensic Science International: Synergy. 2, p. 206-209 4 p.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Editorial › peer-review

Open Access

File

2019

A method for calculating the strength of evidence associated with an earwitness’s claimed recognition of a familiar speaker

Rosas, C., Sommerhoff, J. & Morrison, G. S., 1 Nov 2019, In: Science and Justice. 59, 6, p. 585-596 12 p.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Open Access

File

A statistical procedure to adjust for time-interval mismatch in forensic voice comparison

Morrison, G. S. & Kelly, F., 1 Sept 2019, In: Speech Communication. 112, p. 15-21 7 p.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Open Access

File

Forensic speech science

Morrison, G. S., Zhang, C. & Enzinger, E., 10 May 2019, Expert Evidence: Law, Practice, Procedure and Advocacy. Freckelton, I. & Selby, H. (eds.). 6th ed. Sydney, Australia

Research output: Chapter in Book/Published conference output › Chapter

Open Access

Introduction to forensic voice comparison

Morrison, G. S. & Enzinger, E., 28 Mar 2019, The Routledge Handbook of Phonetics. Katz, W. F. & Assmann, P. F. (eds.). p. 599–634 36 p.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Published conference output › Chapter

Open Access

File

Multi-laboratory evaluation of forensic voice comparison systems under conditions reflecting those of a real forensic case (forensic_eval_01) – Conclusion

Morrison, G. S. & Enzinger, E., 1 Sept 2019, In: Speech Communication. 112, p. 37-39 3 p.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Editorial › peer-review

Open Access

File

2018

Admissibility of forensic voice comparison testimony in England and Wales

Morrison, G. S., 1 Jan 2018, In: Criminal Law Review. 2018, 1, p. 20-33 14 p.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Open Access

File

A response to Marquis et al (2017) What is the error margin of your signature analysis?

Morrison, G. S., Ballentyne, K. & Geoghegan, P., Jun 2018, In: Forensic Science International. 287, p. e11-e12 6 p.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Letter, comment/opinion or interview › peer-review

Open Access

File

Score based procedures for the calculation of forensic likelihood ratios - scores should take account of both similarity and typicality

Morrison, G. S. & Enzinger, E., 1 Jan 2018, In: Science and Justice. 58, 1, p. 47-58

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Open Access

File

The impact in forensic voice comparison of lack of calibration and of mismatched conditions between the known-speaker recording and the relevant-population sample recordings

Morrison, G. S., 1 Feb 2018, In: Forensic Science International. 283, p. e1-e7

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Open Access

File

法庭说话人识别新范式实证研究

Translated title of the contribution: Forensic voice comparison using the new paradigm for a real caseMorrison, G. S., Zhang, C. & Enzinger, E., 31 Dec 2018, In: Journal of Chinese People's Public Security University(Science and Technology). 97, 3, p. 30-37

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

2017

A comment on the PCAST report: skip the “match”/“non-match” stage

Morrison, G. S., Kaye, D. H., Balding, D. J., Taylor, D., Dawid, P., Aitken, C. G. G., Gittelson, S., Zadora, G., Robertson, B., Willis, S., Pope, S., Neil, M., Martire, K. A., Hepler, A., Gill, R. D., Jamieson, A., de Zoete, J., Ostrum, R. B. & Caliebe, A., 1 Mar 2017, In: Forensic Science International. 272, p. e7-e9 3 p.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Letter, comment/opinion or interview › peer-review

Open Access

File

Assessing the admissibility of a new generation of forensic voice comparison testimony

Morrison, G. S. & Thompson, W. C., 15 May 2017, In: Columbia Science and Technology Law Review. 18, p. 326–434

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Open Access

File

Avoiding overstating the strength of forensic evidence: Shrunk likelihood ratios/Bayes factors

Morrison, G. S. & Poh, N., 22 Dec 2017, In: Science and Justice. 58, 3, p. 200-218

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Open Access

File

Empirical test of the performance of an acoustic-phonetic approach to forensic voice comparison under conditions similar to those of a real case

Enzinger, E. & Morrison, G. S., 1 Aug 2017, In: Forensic Science International. 277, p. 30-40 11 p.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Open Access

File

What should a forensic practitioner's likelihood ratio be? II

Morrison, G. S., Nov 2017, In: Science and Justice. 57, 6, p. 472-476

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Open Access

File

2016

A demonstration of the application of the new paradigm for the evaluation of forensic evidence under conditions reflecting those of a real forensic-voice-comparison case

Enzinger, E., Morrison, G. S. & Ochoa, F., 1 Jan 2016, In: Science and Justice. 56, 1, p. 42-57 16 p.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

INTERPOL survey of the use of speaker identification by law enforcement agencies

Morrison, G. S., Sahito, F. H., Jardine, G., Djokic, D., Clavet, S., Berghs, S. & Goemans Dorny, C., 1 Jun 2016, In: Forensic Science International. 263, p. 92-100 9 p.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Multi-laboratory evaluation of forensic voice comparison systems under conditions reflecting those of a real forensic case (forensic_eval_01) – Introduction

Morrison, G. S. & Enzinger, E., 1 Dec 2016, In: Speech Communication. 85, p. 119-126 8 p.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Editorial › peer-review

Refining the relevant population in forensic voice comparison – A response to Hicks et alii (2015) The importance of distinguishing information from evidence/observations when formulating propositions

Morrison, G. S., Enzinger, E. & Zhang, C., 11 Jul 2016, In: Science and Justice. 56, 6, p. 492-497 6 p.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Letter, comment/opinion or interview › peer-review

Special issue on measuring and reporting the precision of forensic likelihood ratios: Introduction to the debate

Morrison, G. S., 1 Sept 2016, In: Science and Justice. 56, 5, p. 371-373 3 p.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Use of relevant data, quantitative measurements, and statistical models to calculate a likelihood ratio for a Chinese forensic voice comparison case involving two sisters

Zhang, C., Morrison, G. S. & Enzinger, E., 1 Oct 2016, In: Forensic Science International. 267, p. 115-124 10 p.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

What should a forensic practitioner's likelihood ratio be?

Morrison, G. S. & Enzinger, E., 1 Sept 2016, In: Science and Justice. 56, 5, p. 374-379 6 p.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

2015

Mismatched distances from speakers to telephone in a forensic-voice-comparison case

Enzinger, E. & Morrison, G. S., 1 Jun 2015, In: Speech Communication. 70, p. 28-41 14 p.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

2014

An acoustic and statistical analysis of spanish mid-vowel allophones

Morrison, G. S., 2014, In: Estudios de Fonetica Experimental. 13, p. 12-37 26 p.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Review article › peer-review

Distinguishing between forensic science and forensic pseudoscience: Testing of validity and reliability, and approaches to forensic voice comparison

Morrison, G. S., May 2014, In: Science and Justice. 54, 3, p. 245-256 12 p.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Review article › peer-review

Forensic strength of evidence statements should preferably be likelihood ratios calculated using relevant data, quantitative measurements, and statistical models: A response to Lennard (2013) Fingerprint identification: how far have we come?

Morrison, G. S. & Stoel, R. D., 3 Jul 2014, In: Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences. 46, 3, p. 282-292 11 p.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Review article › peer-review

Likelihood ratio calculation for a disputed-utterance analysis with limited available data

Morrison, G. S., Lindh, J. & Curran, J. M., Mar 2014, In: Speech Communication. 58, p. 81-90 10 p.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

2013

Geoffrey Stewart Morrison, BSc MTS MA PhD FCSFS

Research output

Search results