A response to Busey & Klutzke (2022): Regarding subjective assignment of likelihood ratios

Geoffrey Stewart Morrison

doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2022.11.003

A response to Busey & Klutzke (2022): Regarding subjective assignment of likelihood ratios

Geoffrey Stewart Morrison

Aston Institute for Forensic Linguistics

Research output: Contribution to journal › Letter, comment/opinion or interview

Abstract

Busey & Klutzke (2022) states that “Morrison (2012) has argued that the likelihood ratio need not be quantitative but could be based on the expert's subjective evaluation.” The statement appears to suggest that Morrison (2012) argued in favour of subjective assignment of likelihood-ratio values. This interpretation of Morrison (2012) is incorrect.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	61-62
Journal	Science and Justice
Volume	63
Issue number	1
Early online date	25 Nov 2022
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2022.11.003
Publication status	Published - Jan 2023

Bibliographical note

Copyright © 2022 The Chartered Society of Forensic Sciences. Published by Elsevier B.V. This accepted manuscript version is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License [https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/]. Funding Information:
The writing of this response was supported by Research England’s Expanding Excellence in England Fund as part of funding for the Aston Institute for Forensic Linguistics 2019–2024.

Keywords

Forensic inference
Likelihood ratio
Subjective

Access to Document

10.1016/j.scijus.2022.11.003

Morrison (2022) A response to Busey & Klutzke (2022)- Regarding subjective assignment of likelihood ratios
Copyright © 2022 The Chartered Society of Forensic Sciences. Published by Elsevier B.V. This accepted manuscript version is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License [https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/].
Accepted author manuscript, 210 KBLicence: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

http://A response to Busey & Klutzke

Cite this

@article{bd5faa3db25f4c8faf22f5d01bed631f,

title = "A response to Busey & Klutzke (2022): Regarding subjective assignment of likelihood ratios",

abstract = "Busey & Klutzke (2022) states that “Morrison (2012) has argued that the likelihood ratio need not be quantitative but could be based on the expert's subjective evaluation.” The statement appears to suggest that Morrison (2012) argued in favour of subjective assignment of likelihood-ratio values. This interpretation of Morrison (2012) is incorrect.",

keywords = "Forensic inference, Likelihood ratio, Subjective",

author = "Morrison, {Geoffrey Stewart}",

note = "Copyright {\textcopyright} 2022 The Chartered Society of Forensic Sciences. Published by Elsevier B.V. This accepted manuscript version is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License [https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/]. Funding Information: The writing of this response was supported by Research England{\textquoteright}s Expanding Excellence in England Fund as part of funding for the Aston Institute for Forensic Linguistics 2019–2024. ",

year = "2023",

month = jan,

doi = "10.1016/j.scijus.2022.11.003",

language = "English",

volume = "63",

pages = "61--62",

journal = "Science and Justice",

issn = "1355-0306",

publisher = "Forensic Science Society",

number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A response to Busey & Klutzke (2022): Regarding subjective assignment of likelihood ratios

AU - Morrison, Geoffrey Stewart

N1 - Copyright © 2022 The Chartered Society of Forensic Sciences. Published by Elsevier B.V. This accepted manuscript version is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License [https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/]. Funding Information: The writing of this response was supported by Research England’s Expanding Excellence in England Fund as part of funding for the Aston Institute for Forensic Linguistics 2019–2024.

PY - 2023/1

Y1 - 2023/1

N2 - Busey & Klutzke (2022) states that “Morrison (2012) has argued that the likelihood ratio need not be quantitative but could be based on the expert's subjective evaluation.” The statement appears to suggest that Morrison (2012) argued in favour of subjective assignment of likelihood-ratio values. This interpretation of Morrison (2012) is incorrect.

AB - Busey & Klutzke (2022) states that “Morrison (2012) has argued that the likelihood ratio need not be quantitative but could be based on the expert's subjective evaluation.” The statement appears to suggest that Morrison (2012) argued in favour of subjective assignment of likelihood-ratio values. This interpretation of Morrison (2012) is incorrect.

KW - Forensic inference

KW - Likelihood ratio

KW - Subjective

UR - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1355030622001514

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85142764874&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.scijus.2022.11.003

DO - 10.1016/j.scijus.2022.11.003

M3 - Letter, comment/opinion or interview

SN - 1355-0306

VL - 63

SP - 61

EP - 62

JO - Science and Justice

JF - Science and Justice

IS - 1

ER -

A response to Busey & Klutzke (2022): Regarding subjective assignment of likelihood ratios

Abstract

Bibliographical note

Keywords

Access to Document

Other files and links

Cite this