Assessment of forensic findings when alternative explanations have different likelihoods—“Blame-the-brother”-syndrome

Assessment of forensic findings with likelihood ratios is for several cases straightforward, but there are a number of situations where contemplation of the alternative explanation to the evidence needs consideration, in particular when it comes to the reporting of the evidentiary strength. The likelihood ratio approach cannot be directly applied to cases where the proposition alternative to the forwarded one is a set of multiple propositions with different likelihoods and different prior probabilities. Here we present a general framework based on the Bayes' factor as the quantitative measure of evidentiary strength from which it can be deduced whether the direct application of a likelihood ratio is reasonable or not. The framework is applied on DNA evidence in forms of an extension to previously published work. With the help of a scale of conclusions we provide a solution to the problem of communicating to the court the evidentiary strength of a DNA match when a close relative to the suspect has a non-negligible prior probability of being the source of the DNA.     

Assessment of approximate likelihood ratios from continuous distributions: a case study of digital camera identification

A reported likelihood ratio for the value of evidence is very often a point estimate based on various types of reference data. When presented in court, such frequentist likelihood ratio gets a higher scientific value if it is accompanied by an error bound. This becomes particularly important when the magnitude of the likelihood ratio is modest and thus is giving less support for the forwarded proposition. Here, we investigate methods for error bound estimation for the specific case of digital camera identification. The underlying probability distributions are continuous and previously proposed models for those are used, but the derived methodology is otherwise general. Both asymptotic and resampling distributions are applied in combination with different types of point estimators. The results show that resampling is preferable for assessment based on asymptotic distributions. Further, assessment of parametric estimators is superior to evaluation of kernel estimators when background data are limited.