A response to “Likelihood ratio as weight of evidence: A closer look” by Lund and Iyer

Gittelson, S; Berger, CEH; Jackson, G; Evett, IW; Champod, C; Robertson, B; Curran, JM; Taylor, D; Weir, BS; Coble, MD; Buckleton, JS

A response to “Likelihood ratio as weight of evidence: A closer look” by Lund and Iyer

Gittelson, S

Berger, CEH Jackson, G Evett, IW Champod, C Robertson, B Curran, JM Taylor, D Weir, BS Coble, MD Buckleton, JS

Permalink

Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Forensic Science International, 2018, 288 pp. e15 - e19
Issue Date:: 2018-07-01

Closed Access

	Filename	Description	Size
	1-s2.0-S0379073818302755-main.pdf	Published Version	364.91 kB	Adobe PDF	View/Open

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Closed Access

This item is closed access and not available.

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Gittelson, S https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0490-5996	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Berger, CEH	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Jackson, G	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Evett, IW	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Champod, C	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Robertson, B	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Curran, JM	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Taylor, D	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Weir, BS	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Coble, MD	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Buckleton, JS	en_US
dc.date.available	2018-05-15	en_US
dc.date.issued	2018-07-01	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	Forensic Science International, 2018, 288 pp. e15 - e19	en_US
dc.identifier.issn	0379-0738	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/128166
dc.description.abstract	© 2018 Elsevier B.V. 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.	en_US
dc.relation.ispartof	Forensic Science International	en_US
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1016/j.forsciint.2018.05.025	en_US
dc.subject.classification	Legal & Forensic Medicine	en_US
dc.title	A response to “Likelihood ratio as weight of evidence: A closer look” by Lund and Iyer	en_US
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	288	en_US
utslib.for	0699 Other Biological Sciences	en_US
utslib.for	0104 Statistics	en_US
pubs.embargo.period	Not known	en_US
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Science
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Science/School of Mathematical and Physical Sciences
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Strength - CFS - Centre for Forensic Science
utslib.copyright.status	closed_access
pubs.publication-status	Published	en_US
pubs.volume	288	en_US

Abstract:

© 2018 Elsevier B.V. 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.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/128166