The response to R ½ T. Can forensic acoustics play a leading rôle in a new wave of adoption of the likelihood-ratio framework?
Geoffrey Stewart Morrison · The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2011
In 2010, the England and Wales Court of Appeals ruled in R ν T that the likelihood-ratio framework should not be used for the evaluation of evidence except “where there is a firm statistical base.” It was not favorable to the use of likelihood ratios even if a firm statistical base does exist. It was, however, willing to accept evidence without a firm statistical base, but on the condition that likelihood ratios are not used. In response, 31 leading forensic scientists published a statement asserting that the likelihood-ratio framework is the logically correct way to evaluate evidence (as a logical framework it is not itself dependent on data or statistical models). This statement has been endorsed by the board of the European Network of Forensic Science Institutes, representing 58 laboratories in 33 countries. Forensic scientists have argued that the ruling is based on misunderstandings of both the likelihood-ratio framework and statistics. The presenter proposes that the magnitude of the response to R ν T potentially heralds a new wave of adoption of the likelihood-ratio framework by forensic scientists and by the courts (the first wave was DNA in the 1990s) and that forensic acoustics can potentially play a leading rôle.