, 2/2014

343.14
doi:10.5937/zrpfns48-6764

: ? -
, - .
-
,
. -
, , .
-
. -
-
, .
: , ,

.

. . -
- V ( Constitutio Criminalis Caroli-
na,1532..) -
. -
.
,
2 .

( ) . -

. , -
173
 , (. 173192)

, : -
, -
.

. , -
, -
.
.
. -
, .
,
-
XIX 1. -
,
, ,
. .
XX , ,
,
. -
, , -
, ,
, , -
.
,
-
.
-
, . -
, -
.
, , -
. . -
,
.
( ) ,
.
.

1

1929..

174
 , 2/2014

II

1.
1.1.
-
. -
. ,
. -
.
. .
() -
-(A).
( 6 -
) ( ).

. -
, -
, , - -
.

.
-
, . -
, ,
. .
0 1. -
0, . -
.
1, .

.,
, -
, -
.
.

1.2.
. -
() -
() /. ,
175
 , (. 173192)

X,
5% , -
5% 0,05. -
. -
, -
.
.2 -
,-
, .

, -
.

1.3.

A.N.
. -
, -
. -
, () (). a
() [(A)] -
:

(A)=(A)x()

-
.

: 1)
, 2)
-
3, 3)
, 4) -
, .
:

2

, .
3
.

176
 , 2/2014

- 1:3000
-1. 1:100
-2. 1:100
- 1:3

1:1x100x3.000x3)=90.000.000. ,
4 ,
1:90.000.000 .4
-
. ()
.
-
A, [tj.(A)=0] -
[tj.(A)=1] . -
,, .
, X,
1.000.000 5% , -
50.000 X . , -
,
X, ,
, 50.000 , .
49.999. .
, , -
,
, .

.. () 1:5
X, 1:95
, 5.

1.4. .
,

.

4
: Haller-Klein,berlegung zum kriminaltechnischen Sachbeweis und die
mglichkeit seiner wahrscheinlichkeitstheoretischen Bewertung,Archiv der Kriminologie, .177,
.9-17.
5
Ewett.I.W.,What is the Probably,that this Blood Came from that Person?A Meaningful
Question, Journal of Forensic Science Society,.23/1983,.35 37

177
 , (. 173192)

, . -
. , -
.
,
. 5%, -
-
1:2. .

:
( ) ( )
, . -

, -
, 500- (1:5). -
3%( 1:3) (. -
), 70% .
(1:2; 1:5; 1:3)
1:(2x500x3)=1:3000. ()

1:3000.
, 1:2, 1:36.

1.5.

.
10.000.000
. 7, X -
5% 5. , 100.000 -
5000 , 1000 50 . -
, , -
()
1:500.000, 1:5000 1:50. -
, 8.
, -
, . ,

6
Haller-Klein, cit.delo,.11.
7
Haller-Klein Pool ., , .
8
, -
. , (
), , .

178
 , 2/2014

(Pool) -
9. , -
, , .
.
, -
X,
( ). -
4% , . ,
24 .
. ,

. , -
, ,
. ,
( -
), ,1:1500. -
,

, 4% 10.

2.
XX -
(
, ,
.) -
. , .
-
, -
11 . ,
-

9
Haller Klein,cit.delo,. 13.
10
Katona,G.,Vals vagy valtlan, Budapest,1990,.87.
11
Thomas Bayes (1702-1761), , . An Essay
towards solving a Problem in the Doctrine of Chances
,
. Royal Society 1764.. -
XIX . -
XX .
1980- .

179
 , (. 173192)

.
.12

2.1 13
-
.
: (A/)-
.
-
.
,
.

.

. :
(. )
. , -
(. ) -
. -

.

=
( -posteriori ) (-priori )

,
:
. ,
( -
) .
- .

12
Tatr,L.:Die Anwendung der Bayes-Analyse im Strafprozess,Emlkknyv Vargha Lszl
szletsnek 90.vforduljra,Pcs,2003,. 252.
13
-
.

180
 , 2/2014

. -
.
y (--
) . posteriori -
priori .
-priori
j .14
, ()
() (
),
.
: : 12450

, , 12450 1
. (Likeli-
hood ratio-) 1/(1/12450)=12450 .
.
() -
, :

(A/)=(A):()
(A/) -

()
.
(. )

(/A)=(A/) x (): (A/)x(A/) =1

=1
-1,2,.... 15
() 0 =1,2,...

, -

14
Tremmel-Fenyvesi-Herke: Kriminalisztika. Pcs,2005..293.
15
, -
,.
.

181
 , (. 173192)

-
. ( ) -
. ( -
-
).16 . ,
-
.
, [()] -
[()A]. 17 .

(. ).
:

. . -
,
() .
() .
,
, -
: .
:
:
- ,
- ( )

.
-
( ) -
.
C C1, -
F, I
.
:

(/,):(1/,)=[(/,): (/1,)]x[(/):1/)]

= -
x .

16
Haller-Klein,cit.delo, .13
17
Katona,G.:.,.89.

182
 , 2/2014

.
-
. -
18.
:
1. -
,
,
. P(/,/,) (/,)
2. -
,
, , .
(/1,)
:
, (I) ,
. (/,)=1(.
).
5%(,5),
1/,5=20.
, , -
- ,
, 20 ( )19.
:
,
(. ) -
,
. (/,)= 1 (.
).
( -
) .
20.
(Likelihood ratio=)
-
21.

18
.
19
Ewett,I.W.: On a meaningful Questions: a two- Trace Transfer Problem ,Journal of Fo-
rensic Science Society,1987, .376
20
Katona,G.: . 92.
21
Ewett,I.W.: . , . 377.

183
 , (. 173192)

,
() (I)
(. -
), -
:
C=
C1=
,
Q1,

=
1

, :

= 1
Q1

() ,
.

2.1.
.
-
. .
-
XX .
-
. , -
(Hi-tec)
, -
. , -
, ,
.
-

-

184
 , 2/2014

22.
. -
-
. :
(likelihood ratio) - . -
- -

(likelihood ratio) , .
(-
).
. -
. -
, , -
, , :
1. -: X
[(+)]- , X[(-) ];
2. -( ). -
X(+)- X(-);
3. ( ) X(+)-
(-)
-
-
.

P(Hp/E) = P(Hp) x P(/Hp)

P(Hd/E) P(Hd) P(E/Hd)

:
-( ) -
-E -
- - (+)
- - (-)
-/- -
E ( -
E ). 23

22
-
. :Champod/Ewett : Harmonising the Scale
of Conclusion-the Bayesian Approach,Information Bulletin for SPTM,.3/2000
23
Aitken,Statistical Interpretation of Evidence/Bayesian Analysis, : Siegel,Encyclopedia
of Forensic Science,SanDiego,2ooo,.717.

185
 , (. 173192)

, ,
() , , (
), , -
, .
-
(likelihood ratio):

()
()

, -
, .
.

, ( ). -
:
- 1, , ,
- 2, ,
- 10.000 ,
(likelihood ratio) -
.
. -
match- (alterego - ) -
-
24.
-
.
-
, -
.
-
, -
-
.
, -
, -
. , -
, ,
(Likelihood ratio) .

24
Weir,DNA Match and Profile Probabilities,Forensic Science Communikations,.3/2001.

186
 , 2/2014

2.2.

-
.
-
. -
,-
, . -

. -
.
,

( , , .)
.

.
: 3
10% .

10% x10% x10%=0,1%

.
100%-0,1=99,9%

:
( -
- ) ,
,

() ,
. -
.
, ,

.
-
, ,
.-
187
 , (. 173192)

.
(. -
)
.
(-
)
(.).
(-
, , , .). -
. , -
, ,
(
). -

.

, . -

-
.

(. ,
). , -
-
.
-
(. , , , .),
, -
. -
, -
.
-
. -
(. )
. -
-
25.

25
Bodziak,Footwear Impression Evidence, . : Katona,A kriminalisztika s a
bngyi tudomnyok,Budapest,2002, .177.

188
 , 2/2014

. -
, -
-
. -
, -
. ,
.

.
,
.

().
, . -
, ()
.
-
.
. -

- ,
,
- -
,
- (.
-
),
.

.
, . -
, ,
. -
,
-.

. -
(.).
( -
)

189
 , (. 173192)

.
. :
- , -
,
,
-
,
- ,
.
. (closed set frame
work), .
-
-
.

III

.
,
.
( ) -

. -
, (
), -
26. , -
. , -
. -
, -
. -
, , -
. ,
.
.
.

. ,

26
Haller Klein,cit.,.11

190
 , 2/2014

. -
. -
-
, .
,
:
- ,
.
, ,
;
-
;
- (,,-
) .
-
.
-
.
. -
. -

.
- -

.

191
 , (. 173192)

Itvan Feje, Ph.D., Full Professor

University of Novi Sad
Faculty of Law Novi Sad

The Application of Probability Analysis in Evidence Evaluation

Abstract: The paper is divided into three larer parts.

In the introductory part the author reminds us that the application of mat-
hematics to assess the evidence is not a substantially new idea. Inquisition pro-
cedures prescribed the legal assessment of evidence that consisted of primitive
mechanical addin and subtractin the available evidence. However, modern
mathematical methods that can be used for assessing evidence are far more
sophisticated, and are based on probability analysis and computer technoloy.
In the second part the paper deals with some possibilities of applyin the
probability analysis to evaluate evidence. It particularly tackles the potential of
the Bayes' theorem of conditional probability in evidence assessment.
The third part is the conclusion in which the author emphasizes that scien-
tific progress is extremely fast and that mathematics will enter even more into
courtrooms and thus proressively increase the exact elements of the now pri-
marily subjective process of evidence evaluation. It particularly emphasizes the
advantaes of Bayesian analysis, but it warns that the results of this method are
only one mathematical truth, and that interpretation is the key.
Key words: evidence, evaluation, probability.

192