@article{48c1148e4b524af1ad6f5f77a1383a8f,
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.",
keywords = "Bayesian approach, Bayes{\textquoteright} theorem, Evidential weight, Forensic evidence interpretation, LR",
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.}",
note = "Funding Information: The authors would like to thank Johanna Veth and Maarten Kruijver for their valuable comments on a draft of this paper. J.S. Buckleton, J.M. Curran and B.S. Weir were supported in part by grant number 2017-DN-BX-0136 and J.M. Curran by grant number 2015-DN-BX-K049 from the US National Institute of Justice. Points of view in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice or the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Names of commercial equipment, instruments, and suppliers do not imply recommendation or endorsement by NIST, nor do they imply that the materials or equipment identified are necessarily the best available for the purpose. Funding Information: The authors would like to thank Johanna Veth and Maarten Kruijver for their valuable comments on a draft of this paper. J.S. Buckleton, J.M. Curran and B.S. Weir were supported in part by grant number 2017-DN-BX-0136 and J.M. Curran by grant number 2015-DN-BX-K049 from the US National Institute of Justice . Points of view in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice or the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Names of commercial equipment, instruments, and suppliers do not imply recommendation or endorsement by NIST, nor do they imply that the materials or equipment identified are necessarily the best available for the purpose. Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2018 Elsevier B.V.",
year = "2018",
month = jul,
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",
}