Evidence evaluation: A response to the court of appeal judgment in R v T

被引:67
作者
Berger, Charles E. H. [2 ]
Buckleton, John
Champod, Christophe [3 ]
Evett, Ian W. [1 ]
Jackson, Graham [4 ]
机构
[1] London Lab, Forens Sci Serv, London SE1 7LP, England
[2] NFI, The Hague, Netherlands
[3] Univ Lausanne, Ecole Sci Criminelles, Inst Police Sci, BCH, CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland
[4] Univ Abertay Dundee, Dundee DD1 1HG, Scotland
关键词
Forensic Science; Interpretation; Bayesian inference; Likelihood ratio; Footwear; PROSECUTORS FALLACY; PROBABILITIES;
D O I
10.1016/j.scijus.2011.03.005
中图分类号
DF [法律]; D9 [法律]; R [医药、卫生];
学科分类号
0301 ; 10 ;
摘要
This is a discussion of a number of issues that arise from the recent judgment in R v T[1]. In Although the judgment concerned with footwear evidence, more general remarks have implications for all disciplines within forensic science. Our concern is that the judgment will be interpreted as being in opposition to the principles of logical interpretation of evidence. We re-iterate those principles and then discuss several extracts from the judgment that may be potentially harmful to the future of forensic science. A position statement with regard to evidence evaluation, signed by many forensic scientists, statisticians and lawyers, has appeared in this journal [2] and the present paper expands on the points made in that statement. (C) 2011 Forensic Science Society. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:43 / 49
页数:7
相关论文
共 3 条