A review of likelihood ratios in forensic science based on a critique of Stiffelman “No longer the Gold standard: Probabilistic genotyping is changing the nature of DNA evidence in criminal trials”

John Buckleton, Bernard Robertson, James Curran, Charles Berger, Duncan Taylor, Jo Anne Bright, Tacha Hicks, Simone Gittelson, Ian Evett, Simone Pugh, Graham Jackson, Hannah Kelly, Tim Kalafut, Frederick R. Bieber

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Stiffelman [1] gives a broad critique of the application of likelihood ratios (LRs) in forensic science, in particular their use in probabilistic genotyping (PG) software. These are discussed in this review. LRs do not infringe on the ultimate issue. The Bayesian paradigm clearly separates the role of the scientist from that of the decision makers and distances the scientist from comment on the ultimate and subsidiary issues. LRs do not affect the reasonable doubt standard. Fact finders must still make decisions based on all the evidence and they must do this considering all evidence, not just that given probabilistically. LRs do not infringe on the presumption of innocence. The presumption of innocence does not equate with a prior probability of zero but simply that the person of interest (POI) is no more likely than anyone else to be the donor. Propositions need to be exhaustive within the context of the case. That is, propositions deemed relevant by either defense or prosecution which are not fanciful must not be omitted from consideration.

Original languageEnglish
Article number110251
Number of pages6
JournalForensic Science International
Volume310
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - May 2020

Keywords

  • Exhaustiveness
  • Likelihood ratio
  • Presumption of innocence
  • Reasonable doubt

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'A review of likelihood ratios in forensic science based on a critique of Stiffelman “No longer the Gold standard: Probabilistic genotyping is changing the nature of DNA evidence in criminal trials”'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this