Response to: Biedermann & Hicks (2019), Commentary on “Dennis McNevin, Bayesian interpretation of discrete class characteristics, Forensic Science International, 292 (2018) 125–130”
[...]we demonstrate that the posterior ratio will only be greater than one “when LR is at least as large as the number of things that could possibly be the source of that evidence, all being equally able to contribute” [1]. [...]we chiefly address an example of a paint chip from a car where N is der...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Forensic science international 2019-05, Vol.298, p.e1-e2 |
---|---|
1. Verfasser: | |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | [...]we demonstrate that the posterior ratio will only be greater than one “when LR is at least as large as the number of things that could possibly be the source of that evidence, all being equally able to contribute” [1]. [...]we chiefly address an example of a paint chip from a car where N is derived from the number of cars (not people) that could equally be the source of a paint chip. [...]we have little sympathy with the argument that it is not fair to compare the LRs obtained for DNA with those for other types of evidence simply because only “moderate likelihood ratios of up to a few hundred are most commonly obtained” for the latter [2]. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0379-0738 1872-6283 |
DOI: | 10.1016/j.forsciint.2019.03.009 |