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

Simone Gittelson, Charles E. H. Berger, Graham Jackson, Ian W. Evett, Christophe Champod, Bernard Robertson, James M. Curran, Duncan Taylor, Bruce S. Weir, Michael D. Coble, John S. Buckleton

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debate

Abstract

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.
LanguageEnglish
Pagese15-e19
Number of pages5
JournalForensic Science International
Volume288
Early online date22 May 2018
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jul 2018

Fingerprint

Weights and Measures

Cite this

Gittelson, S., Berger, C. E. H., Jackson, G., Evett, I. W., Champod, C., Robertson, B., ... Buckleton, J. S. (2018). A response to “Likelihood ratio as weight of evidence: a closer look” by Lund and Iyer. Forensic Science International, 288, e15-e19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2018.05.025
Gittelson, Simone ; Berger, Charles E. H. ; Jackson, Graham ; Evett, Ian W. ; Champod, Christophe ; Robertson, Bernard ; Curran, James M. ; Taylor, Duncan ; Weir, Bruce S. ; Coble, Michael D. ; Buckleton, John S. / A response to “Likelihood ratio as weight of evidence: a closer look” by Lund and Iyer. In: Forensic Science International. 2018 ; Vol. 288. pp. e15-e19.
@article{571123fbf2a34be2ad6d2217d7fddb1f,
title = "A response to “Likelihood ratio as weight of evidence: a closer look” by Lund and Iyer",
abstract = "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.",
author = "Simone Gittelson and Berger, {Charles E. H.} and Graham Jackson and Evett, {Ian W.} and Christophe Champod and Bernard Robertson and Curran, {James M.} and Duncan Taylor and Weir, {Bruce S.} and Coble, {Michael D.} and Buckleton, {John S.}",
year = "2018",
month = "7",
doi = "10.1016/j.forsciint.2018.05.025",
language = "English",
volume = "288",
pages = "e15--e19",
journal = "Forensic Science International",
issn = "0379-0738",
publisher = "Elsevier Ireland Ltd",

}

Gittelson, S, Berger, CEH, Jackson, G, Evett, IW, Champod, C, Robertson, B, Curran, JM, Taylor, D, Weir, BS, Coble, MD & Buckleton, JS 2018, 'A response to “Likelihood ratio as weight of evidence: a closer look” by Lund and Iyer' Forensic Science International, vol. 288, pp. e15-e19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2018.05.025

A response to “Likelihood ratio as weight of evidence: a closer look” by Lund and Iyer. / Gittelson, Simone; Berger, Charles E. H.; Jackson, Graham; Evett, Ian W.; Champod, Christophe; Robertson, Bernard; Curran, James M.; Taylor, Duncan; Weir, Bruce S.; Coble, Michael D.; Buckleton, John S.

In: Forensic Science International, Vol. 288, 07.2018, p. e15-e19.

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debate

TY - JOUR

T1 - A response to “Likelihood ratio as weight of evidence: a closer look” by Lund and Iyer

AU - Gittelson, Simone

AU - Berger, Charles E. H.

AU - Jackson, Graham

AU - Evett, Ian W.

AU - Champod, Christophe

AU - Robertson, Bernard

AU - Curran, James M.

AU - Taylor, Duncan

AU - Weir, Bruce S.

AU - Coble, Michael D.

AU - Buckleton, John S.

PY - 2018/7

Y1 - 2018/7

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

U2 - 10.1016/j.forsciint.2018.05.025

DO - 10.1016/j.forsciint.2018.05.025

M3 - Comment/debate

VL - 288

SP - e15-e19

JO - Forensic Science International

T2 - Forensic Science International

JF - Forensic Science International

SN - 0379-0738

ER -