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... Show moreRecently, 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. Show less
A recent report by the US President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) has made a number of recommendations for the future development of forensic science. Whereas we all agree... Show moreA recent report by the US President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) has made a number of recommendations for the future development of forensic science. Whereas we all agree that there is much need for change, we find that the PCAST report recommendations are founded on serious misunderstandings. We explain the traditional forensic paradigms of match and identification and the more recent foundation of the logical approach to evidence evaluation. This forms the groundwork for exposing many sources of confusion in the PCAST report. We explain how the notion of treating the scientist as a black box and the assignment of evidential weight through error rates is overly restrictive and misconceived. Our own view sees inferential logic, the development of calibrated knowledge and understanding of scientists as the core of the advance of the profession. Show less
Matching DNA profiles of an accused person and a crime scene trace are one of the most common forms of forensic evidence. A number of years ago the so-called ‘DNA controversy’ was concerned with... Show moreMatching DNA profiles of an accused person and a crime scene trace are one of the most common forms of forensic evidence. A number of years ago the so-called ‘DNA controversy’ was concerned with how to quantify the value of such evidence. Given its importance, the lack of understanding of such a basic issue was quite surprising and concerning. Deriving the equation for the likelihood ratio of a DNA database match in a much more direct and simple way is the topic of this paper. As it is much easier to follow it is hoped that this derivation will contribute to the understanding. Show less
