An extended likelihood ratio framework for interpreting evidence

Science and Justice - Journal of the Forensic Science Society

Volumn 46, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 69-78

  Buckleton, J S ^a   Triggs, C M ^b   Champod, C ^c  

^a MT ALBERT RESEARCH CENTRE   (New Zealand)

^b UNIVERSITY OF AUCKLAND   (New Zealand)

^c UNIVERSITY OF LAUSANNE   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Bayesian framework; Bayesian networks; Interpretation of evidence; Likelihood ratio

Indexed keywords

BAYES THEOREM; FORENSIC SCIENCE; LEGAL EVIDENCE; REVIEW; STATISTICAL MODEL;

EID: 33748796620     PISSN: 13550306     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S1355-0306(06)71577-5     Document Type: Article

References (50)

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, and 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 and Vignaux GA Interpreting Evidence - Evaluating Forensic Science in the Courtroom. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Inc., 1995.
8. Evett IW and Weir BS Interpreting DNA Evidence - Statistical Genetics for Forensic Scientists. Sunderland: Sinauer Associates, Inc., 1998.
9. Taroni F, Lambert JA, Fereday L, and Werrett DJ Evaluation and Presentation of Forensic DNA Evidence in European Laboratories. Science and Justice 2002; 42: 21-28.
10. Curran JM, Hicks TN, and 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, and 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, and Lambert JA A Model for Case Assessment and Interpretation. Science and Justice 1998; 38: 151-156.
14. Evett IW, Jackson G, and Lambert JA More on the hierarchy of propositions: exploring the distinction between explanations and propositions. Science & Justice 2000; 40: 3-10.
15. Meester R and 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 and 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 and 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, and 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, and 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 and Donnelly P How convincing is DNA evidence? Nature 1994; 368: 285-286.
26. Balding DJ, Donnelly P, and Nichols RA Some causes for concern about DNA profiles - comment. Statistical Science 1994; 9: 248-251.
27. Balding DJ and Donnelly P Inference in forensic identification, J.R.S.S. A 1995; 158: 21-53.
28. Balding DJ and Donnelly P Inferring identity from DNA profile evidence. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, USA 1995; 92: 11741-11745.
29. Budowle B, Chakraborty R, Carmody G, and Monson KL Reply to Weir. Forensic Science Communications 2001; 3.
30. Aitken CGG and Taroni F Statistics and the Evaluation of Evidence for Forensic Scientists. 2nd ed ed. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd., 2004.
31. Taroni F and Biederman A inadequacies of Posterior Probabilities for the Assessment of Scientific Evidence. Law Probability and Risk 2005; 4: 89-115.
32. Fenton NE and 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 and Schum DA A Probabilistic Analysis of the Sacco and Vanzetti Evidence. New York: John Wiley & Sons Ltd., 1996.
35. Levitt TS and 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: University College London Press., 1996.
38. Cowell RG, Dawid AP, Lauritzen SL, and Spiegelhalter DJ Probabilistic Networks and Expert Systems. M. Jordan, S. L. Lauritzen, J. F. Lawless, and V. Nair, Eds. New York: Springer, 1999.
39. Dawid AP and 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 and 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, and Oldfield R Bayesian Belief Networks with an Application in Specific Case Analysis. In Computational Learning and Probabilistic Reasoning, A. Gammerman, Ed. London: Wiley, 1996: 169-184.
42. Curran J, Triggs CM, Buckleton JS, Walsh KAJ, and 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, and Lauritzen SL Probabilistic expert system for DNA mixture profiling. Theoretical population biology 2003; 63: 191-205.
44. Dawid AP, van Boxel D, Mortera J, and Pascali VL Inference about Disputed Paternity from an Incomplete Pedigree using a Probabilistic Expert System. Bull. Int. Statist. Inst, Contributed Papers, Book 1 1999; 58: 241-242.
45. Dawid AP, Mortera J, Pascali V, and 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, and 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 and 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 Highly Structured Stochastic Systems, P. Green, N. L. Hjort, and S. Richardson, Eds. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002: 39-44.
49. Taroni F, Aitken C, Garbolino P, and Biedermann A Bayesian Networks and Probabilistic Inference in Forensic Science, Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2006.
50. Buckleton JS, Walsh KAJ, Seber GAF, and Woodfield DG A Stratified Approach to the Compilation of Blood Group Frequency Surveys. Journal of the Forensic Science Society 1987; 27: 103-112.