Science & Justice
Volume 46, Issue 2 , Pages 69-78 , April 2006

An extended likelihood ratio framework for interpreting evidence

  • J.S. Buckleton

      Affiliations

    • ESR, Private Bag 92021, Auckland, New Zealand
    • ,
  • C.M. Triggs

      Affiliations

    • University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland, New Zealand
    • ,
  • C. Champod

      Affiliations

    • Ecole des sciences criminelles – Institut de Police Scientifique, Université de Lausanne BCH, CH-1015 Lausanne
    • Corresponding Author InformationAuthor for correspondence.

Received 26 May 2004 ,Accepted 22 February 2006.

References 

  1. Court of Appeal. Regina v Doheny and Adams, Royal Courts of Justice – The Strand – London WC2. 95/5297/Y2 95/0185/W2, 31st July 1996.
  2. Taroni F, Champod C, Margot P. Forerunners of Bayesianism in early forensic science. Jurimetrics. 1998;38:183–200
  3. Essen-Moller E. Die Beweiskraft der Ahnlichkeit im Vatershaftsnachweis. Theoretische Grundlagen. Mitteilungen der Anthropologischen Gesellschaft. 1938;68:9–53
  4. Lindley DV. Probability and the Law. The Statistician. 1977;26:203–220
  5. Evett IW. What is the Probability that This Blood Came from that Person? A Meaningful Question. Journal of the Forensic Science Society. 1983;23:35–39
  6. Aitken CGG. Statistics and the Evaluation of Evidence for Forensic Scientists. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.; 1995;
  7. Robertson B, Vignaux GA. Interpreting Evidence – Evaluating Forensic Science in the Courtroom. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Inc.; 1995;
  8. Evett IW, Weir BS. Interpreting DNA Evidence – Statistical Genetics for Forensic Scientists. Sunderland: Sinauer Associates, Inc.; 1998;
  9. Taroni F, Lambert JA, Fereday L, Werrett DJ. Evaluation and Presentation of Forensic DNA Evidence in European Laboratories. Science and Justice. 2002;42:21–28
  10. Curran JM, Hicks TN, Buckleton J. Forensic Interpretation of Glass Evidence. London: CRC Press; 2000;
  11. Bayes T. An Essay Towards Solving a Problem in the Doctrine of Chances. The Philisophical Transactions. 1763;53:370–418
  12. Cook R, Evett IW, Jackson G, Jones PJ, Lambert JA. A Hierarchy of Propositions: Deciding Which Level to Address in Casework. Science and Justice. 1998;38:231–240
  13. Cook R, Evett IW, Jackson G, Jones PP, Lambert JA. A Model for Case Assessment and Interpretation. Science and Justice. 1998;38:151–156
  14. Evett IW, Jackson G, Lambert JA. More on the hierarchy of propositions: exploring the distinction between explanations and propositions. Science & Justice. 2000;40:3–10
  15. Meester R, Sjerps M. The evidential value in the DNA database search controversy and the two-stain problem. Biometrics. 2003;59:727–732
  16. Triggs CM and Buckleton JS Comment on “Why the effect of prior odds should accompany the likelihood ratio when reporting DNA evidence” Meester, R. and Sjerps, M. Law, Probability and Risk 2004;3(1). Law, Probability & Risk 2004; 3.
  17. Taroni F, Aitken CGG. Probabilistic Reasoning and the Law. Part 1: Assessment of Probabilities and Explanation of the Value of DNA Evidence. Science and Justice. 1998;38:165–177
  18. Taroni F, Aitken CGG. Probabilistic Reasoning and the Law. Part 2: Assessment of Probabilities and Explanation of the Value of Trace Evidence other than DNA. Science and Justice. 1998;38:179–188
  19. Green P Letter from the President [of the Royal Statistical Society] to the Lord Chancellor Regarding the Use of Statistical Evidence in Court Cases. http://www.therss.org.uk/archive/evidence/sc_letter.html 23 January 2002.
  20. Court of Appeal – Criminal Division. Regina v. Dennis John Adams. Royal Courts of Justice – The Strand – London WC2 26th April 1996.
  21. Wiersema S Is the Bayesian approach for you? Presented at European Meeting for Shoeprint/Toolmark Examiners., Berlin, 15th–18th May, 2001.
  22. Saks MJ, Risinger DM, Rosenthal R, Thompson WC. Context effects in forensic science: A review and application of the science of science to crime laboratory practice in the United States. Science and Justice. 2003;43:77–90
  23. Risinger DM, Saks MJ, Thompson WC, Rosenthal R. The Daubert/Kuhmo implications of observer effects in forensic science: Hidden problems of expectation and suggestion. California Law Review. 2002;90:1–56
  24. Redmayne M. Appeal to Reason. The Modern Law Review. 2002;65:19–35
  25. Balding DJ, Donnelly P. How convincing is DNA evidence?. Nature. 1994;368:285–286
  26. Balding DJ, Donnelly P, Nichols RA. Some causes for concern about DNA profiles – comment. Statistical Science. 1994;9:248–251
  27. Balding DJ, Donnelly P. Inference in forensic identification. J.R.S.S. A. 1995;158:21–53
  28. Balding DJ, Donnelly P. Inferring identity from DNA profile evidence. In: Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. USA 92. 1995;p. 11741–11745
  29. Budowle B, Chakraborty R, Carmody G, Monson KL. Reply to Weir. Forensic Science Communications. 2001;3
  30. Aitken CGG, Taroni F. Statistics and the Evaluation of Evidence for Forensic Scientists. 2nd ed. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.; 2004;
  31. Taroni F, Biederman A. Inadequacies of Posterior Probabilities for the Assessment of Scientific Evidence. Law Probability and Risk. 2005;4:89–115
  32. Fenton NE, Neil M. The Jury Observation Fallacy and the use of Bayesian Networks to present Probabilistic Legal Arguments, Mathematics Today. Bulletin of the IMA. 2000;36:180–187
  33. Wigmore J. The Science of Proof: As Given by Logic, Psychology, and General Experience and Illustrated in Judicial Trials. 3rd edition. Boston: Little Brown; 1937;
  34. Kadane JB, Schum DA. A Probabilistic Analysis of the Sacco and Vanzetti Evidence. New York: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.; 1996;
  35. Levitt TS, Blackmond Laskey K. Computational Inference for Evidential Reasoning in Support of Judicial Proof. Cardozo Law Review. 2001;22:1691–1731
  36. Thagard P. Why Wasn’t O.J. Convicted? Emotional Coherence in Legal Inference. Cognition and Emotion. 2003;17:361–383
  37. Jensen FV. An Introduction to Bayesian Networks. Unwersity College London Press.; 1996;
  38. Cowell RG, Dawid AP, Lauritzen SL, Spiegelhalter DJ. In:  Jordan M,  Lauritzen SL,  Lawless JF,  Nair V editor. Probabilistic Networks and Expert Systems. New York: Springer; 1999;
  39. Dawid AP, Evett IW. Using a graphical method to assist the evaluation of complicated patterns of evidence. Journal of Forensic Sciences. 1997;42:226–231
  40. Aitken CGG, Gammerman AJ. Probabilistic Reasoning in Evidential Assessment. Journal of the Forensic Science Society. 1989;29:303–316
  41. Aitken CGG, Gammerman A, Zhang G, Connolly T, Bailey D, Gordon R, et al. Bayesian Belief Networks with an Application in Specific Case Analysis. In:  Gammerman A editors. Computational Learning and Probabilistic Reasoning. London: Wiley; 1996;p. 169–184
  42. Curran J, Triggs CM, Buckleton JS, Walsh KAJ, Hicks T. Assessing Transfer Probabilities in a Bayesian Interpretation of Forensic Glass Evidence. Science and Justice. 1998;38:15–21
  43. Mortera J, Dawid AP, Lauritzen SL. Probabilistic expert system for DNA mixture profiling. Theoretical population biology. 2003;63:191–205
  44. Dawid AP, van Boxel D, Mortera J, Pascali VL. Inference about Disputed Paternity from an Incomplete Pedigree using a Probabilistic Expert System. Bull. Int. Statist. Inst. 1999;58:241–242Contributed Papers, Book 1
  45. Dawid AP, Mortera J, Pascali V, van Boxel D. Probabilistic Expert Systems for Forensic Inference from Genetic Markers. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics. 2002;29:577–595
  46. Evett IW, Gill PD, Jackson G, Whitaker J, Champod C. Interpreting small quantities of DNA: the hierarchy of propositions and the use of Bayesian networks. Journal of Forensic Sciences. 2002;47:520–530
  47. Garbolino P, Taroni F. Evaluation of scientific evidence using Bayesian networks. Forensic Science International. 2002;125:149–155
  48. Mortera J. Analysis of DNA mixtures using Bayesian networks. In:  Green P,  Hjort NL,  Richardson S editor. Highly Structured Stochastic Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2002;p. 39–44
  49. Taroni F, Aitken C, Garbolino P, Biedermann A. Bayesian Networks and Probabilistic Inference in Forensic Science. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2006;
  50. Buckleton JS, Walsh KAJ, Seber GAF, Woodfield DG. A Stratified Approach to the Compilation of Blood Group Frequency Surveys. Journal of the Forensic Science Society. 1987;27:103–112

PII: S1355-0306(06)71577-5

doi: 10.1016/S1355-0306(06)71577-5

Science & Justice
Volume 46, Issue 2 , Pages 69-78 , April 2006

Article Tools