Journal
FORENSIC SCIENCE INTERNATIONAL
Volume 288, Issue -, Pages E15-E19Publisher
ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2018.05.025
Keywords
Forensic evidence interpretation; Evidential weight; LR; Bayesian approach; Bayes' theorem
Categories
Funding
- US National Institute of Justice [2017-DN-BX-0136, 2015-DN-BX-K049]
Ask authors/readers for more resources
Recently, Lund and Iyer (L&I) raised an argument regarding the use of likelihood ratios in court. In our view, their argument is based on a lack of understanding of the paradigm. L&I argue that the decision maker should not accept the expert's likelihood ratio without further consideration. This is agreed by all parties. In normal practice, there is often considerable and proper exploration in court of the basis for any probabilistic statement. We conclude that L&I argue against a practice that does not exist and which no one advocates. Further we conclude that the most informative summary of evidential weight is the likelihood ratio. We state that this is the summary that should be presented to a court in every scientific assessment of evidential weight with supporting information about how it was constructed and on what it was based. (c) 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available