During this meeting there were also good discussions on error rates in forensic science. In the past Jonathan Koehler presented issues of concerns. For that reason it is obvious that error rates in specific areas and labs should be stated in the reports somewhere, or at least should be published, similar as we see this development in comparison of hospitals. During proficiency tests and collaborative test they can be determined (at least for a specific kind of case), however I think there also the uncertainty of the error rate should be given. Last time when I testified in a court of appeal in The Hague the question was asked how I personally scored on those, as well as how the group and the whole ENFSI group scored. This is also one of the issues mentioned by Ian Evett, and he stated it as calibration between persons and groups, which should be done such that the conclusions are harmonized between labs.
Also a new development that was presented was forensic assistants at the court who can answer the most common questions on forensic methods, as well ask helping the courts in combining evidence based on the reports.