When 'neutral' evidence still has probative value (with implications from the Barry George Case)

Science and Justice

Volumn 54, Issue 4, 2014, Pages 274-287

  Fenton, Norman ^a   Berger, Daniel ^a   Lagnado, David ^b   Neil, Martin ^a   Hsu, Anne ^a  

^a QUEEN MARY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Bayesian networks; Evidence evaluation; Likelihood ratio

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BAYES THEOREM; CRIME; DECISION MAKING; HOMICIDE; HUMAN; HYPOTHESIS; LEGAL EVIDENCE; PROBATION; CALCULATION; COMPUTER PROGRAM; DIAGNOSTIC REASONING; EXPERT WITNESS; FORENSIC MEDICINE; PROBABILITY;

BAYESIAN NETWORKS; EVIDENCE EVALUATION; LIKELIHOOD RATIO;

FEMALE; FORENSIC SCIENCES; HUMANS; LIKELIHOOD FUNCTIONS; MALE;

EID: 84903815066     PISSN: 13550306     EISSN: 18764452     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.scijus.2013.07.002     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. R. v. George, EWCA Crim 2722 2007.
2. R v T. EWCA Crim 2439 http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2010/2439.pdf.
3. AgenaRisk software http://www.agenarisk.com.
4. Aitken C.G.G., Taroni F. Statistics and the Evaluation of Evidence for Forensic Scientists 2004, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 2nd ed.
5. Aitken C., many other signatories Expressing evaluative opinions: a position statement. Science & Justice 2011, 51(1):1-2.
6. Balding D.J. Weight-of-Evidence for Forensic DNA Profiles 2005, Wiley.
7. Balding D. Comment on: Why the effect of prior odds should accompany the likelihood ratio when reporting DNA evidence. Law, Probability and Risk 2004, 3(1):63-64.
8. Berger C.E.H., Buckleton J., Champod C., Evett I., Jackson G. Evidence evaluation: a response to the court of appeal judgement in R v T. Science & Justice 2011, 51:43-49.
9. Broeders T. Decision-making in the forensic arena. Legal Evidence and Proof: Statistics, Stories and Logic 2009, 71-92. Ashgate. H. Kaptein, H. Prakken, B. Verheij (Eds.).
10. Buckleton J., Triggs C.M., Walsh S.J. Forensic DNA Evidence Interpretation 2005, CRC Press.
11. Cook R., Evett I.W., Jackson G., Jones P.J., Lambert J.A. A hierarchy of propositions: deciding which level to address in casework. Science & Justice 1998, 38:231-239.
12. Dawid A.P. Which likelihood ratio (comment on 'Why the effect of prior odds should accompany the likelihood ratio when reporting DNA evidence'). Law, Probability and Risk 2004, 3(1):65-71.
13. Evett I.W., Weir B.S. Interpreting DNA Evidence: Statistical Genetics for Forensic Scientists 1998, Sinauer Associates.
14. Evett I.W., Foreman L.A., Jackson G., Lambert J.A. DNA profiling: a discussion of issues relating to the reporting of very small match probabilities. Criminal Law Review 2000, (May):341-355.
15. Evett I.W., Gill P.D., 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 May 2002, 47(3):520-530.
16. Fenton N.E. Science and law: improve statistics in court. Nature 2011, 479:36-37.
17. Fenton N.E., Neil M. Avoiding legal fallacies in practice using Bayesian networks. Australian Journal of Legal Philosophy 2011, 36:114-151.
18. Fenton N.E., Neil M., Lagnado D. Modelling Mutually Exclusive Causes in Bayesian Networks http://www.eecs.qmul.ac.uk/norman/papers/mutual_IEEE_format_version.pdf.
19. Fenton N., Neil M. Risk Assessment and Decision Analysis with Bayesian Networks 2012, CRC Press.
20. Fenton N., Neil M., Lagnado D.A. A general structure for legal arguments about evidence using Bayesian networks. Cognitive Science 2013, 37:61-102.
21. Korb K., Nicholson A. Bayesian artificial intelligence. Chapman & Hall/CRC Computer Science & Data Analysis 2010, 2nd ed.
22. Lempert R.O. Modeling relevance. Michigan Law Review 1977, 75(5/6):1021-1057.
23. Meester R., Sjerps M. Why the effect of prior odds should accompany the likelihood ratio when reporting DNA evidence. Law, Probability and Risk 2004, 3(1):51-62.
24. Meester R., Sjerps M. Response to Dawid, Balding, Triggs and Buckleton. Law, Probability and Risk 2004, 3(1):83-86.
25. Morrison G.M. The likelihood ratio framework and forensic evidence in court: a response to RvT. International Journal of Evidence and Proof 2012, 16(1).
26. Nordgaard A., Hedell R., Ansell R. Assessment of forensic findings when alternative explanations have different likelihoods - "Blame-the-brother" - syndrome. Science & Justice 2012, 52:226-236.
27. Pardo M.S. The nature and purpose of evidence theory. Vanderbilt Law Review 2013, 66.
28. Park R.C., Tillers P., et al. Bayes wars redivivus-an exchange. International Commentary on Evidence 2010, 8(1):1-38.
29. Picinali F. Structuring inferential reasoning in criminal fact finding: an analogical theory. Law, Probability and Risk 2012, 11:197-223.
30. Puch-Solis R., Roberts P., Pope S., Aitken C. PRACTITIONER GUIDE NO 2: Assessing the Probative Value of DNA Evidence, Guidance for Judges, Lawyers, Forensic Scientists and Expert Witnesses 2012, Royal Statistical Society, (http://www.rss.org.uk/uploadedfiles/userfiles/files/Practitioner-Guide-2-WEB.pdf).
31. Redmayne M. Expert Evidence and Criminal Justice 2001, Oxford University Press.
32. Redmayne M., Roberts P., Aitken C., Jackson G. Forensic Science Evidence in Question. Criminal Law Review 2011, 5:347-356.
33. Robertson B., Vignaux T. Interpreting Evidence: Evaluating Forensic Science in the Courtroom 1995, John Wiley and Son Ltd.
34. Robertson B., Vignaux G.A., Berger C.E.H. Extending the confusion about Bayes. The Modern Law Review 2011, 74(3):444-455.
35. Saks M.J., Koehler J.J. The Individualization Fallacy in, Forensic Science Evidence http://works.bepress.com/michael_saks/1.
36. Taroni F., Aitken C., Garbolino P., Biedermann A. Bayesian Networks and Probabilistic Inference in Forensic Science 2006, John Wiley & Sons.
37. Triggs C.M., Buckleton J.S. Comment on: Why the effect of prior odds should accompany the likelihood ratio when reporting DNA evidence. Law, Probability and Risk 2004, 3(1):73-82.