Extending the Confusion About Bayes

Abstract

In R v T [2010] EWCA Crim 2439, [2011] 1 Cr App Rep 85, the Court of Appeal indicated that ‘mathematical formulae’, such as likelihood ratios, should not be used by forensic scientists to analyse data where firm statistical evidence did not exist. Unfortunately, when considering the forensic scientist's evidence, the judgment consistently commits a basic logical error, the ‘transposition of the conditional’ which indicates that the Bayesian argument has not been understood and extends the confusion surrounding it. The judgment also fails to distinguish between the validity of the relationships in a formula and the precision of the data. We explain why the Bayesian method is the correct logical method for analysing forensic scientific evidence, how it works and why ‘mathematical formulae’ can be useful even where firm statistical data is lacking.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 45 citations exist upstream.