Evaluation and presentation of DNA evidence - An Introduction to Forensic Genetics - page 115

The frequentist approach is straightforward and understandable by both a jury
and a judge. For the reporting officer it is straightforward to state in court, and the
opportunity for transposing the conditional and stating the prosecutor's fallacy is
less than with the other two approaches. A disadvantage of the approach is that it
does not consider two propositions where one is the alternative of the other. The
likelihood ratio is a logical approach; it considers an alternative hypothesis. The
Bayesian approach is the most logical way to incorporate all evidence in a case; it
considers alternative hypotheses but it is difficult to calculate and conceptualize.
Further reading
Balding, D.J. (2005) Weight-of-evidence for Forensic DNA Profiles , John Wiley & Sons, Ltd,
Chichester, pp. 145 -156.
Buckelton, J., Triggs, C.M. and Walsh, S.J. (2005) Forensic DNA Evidence Interpretation ,CRC
Press, pp. 27 - 63.
References
1. Cook, R., Evett, I.W., Jackson, G., Jones, P.J. and Lambert, J.A. (1998) A model for case
assessment and interpretation. Science and Justice , 38 , 151 - 156.
2. Evett, I.W., Jackson, G. and Lambert, J.A. (2000) More on the hierarchy of propositions:
exploring the distinction between explanations and propositions. Science and Justice , 40 , 3 - 10.
3. Evett, I.W., Jackson, G., Lambert, L.A. and McCrossan, S. (2000) The impact of the principles
of evidence interpretation on the structure and content of statements. Science and Justice , 40 ,
233 -239.
4. Taroni, F. and Aitken, C.G.G. (2000) DNA evidence, probabilistic evaluation and collaborative
tests. Forensic Science International , 108 , 121 - 143.
5. Meester, R. and Sjerps, M. (2004) Why the effect of prior odds should accompany the likeli-
hood ratio when reporting DNA evidence. Law Probability and Risk , 3 , 51 - 62.
6. Budowle, B., Chakraborty, R., Carmody, G. and Monson, K.L. (2000) Source attribution of
a forensic DNA profile. Forensic Science Communications , 3 . http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/
backissu/july2000/source.htm (accessed July 2010).
7. Triggs, C.M. and Buckleton, J.S. (2002) Logical implications of applying the principles of
population genetics to the interpretation of DNA profiling evidence. Forensic Science Interna-
tional , 128 , 108 - 114.
8. Evett, I.W. and Weir, B.S. (1998) Interpreting DNA Evidence - Statistical Genetics for Forensic
Scientists , Sinauer Associates, pp. 217 - 246.
9. Balding, D.J. and Donnelly, P. (1994) The prosecutor's fallacy and DNA evidence. Criminal
Law Review , 1994 , 711 - 721.