Traditional conclusions in footwear examinations versus the use of the bayesian approach and likelihood ratio: A review of a recent UK appellate court decision

11Citations
Citations of this article
41Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

In 2010, a ruling in the England and Wales Appeal Court quashed a conviction in a homicide case wherein the evidence rested heavily on the association of a shoe sole and a crime scene footwear mark. This decision addressed and criticized the use of the Bayesian approach and likelihood ratios for this form of evidence. The court's comments and the values used by the footwear mark examiner as applied to his Bayesian evaluation and likelihood ratio are discussed. A contrast is drawn to this method versus the traditional footwear mark evaluation used by footwear examiners in the USA and most other countries. © The Author [2012]. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Bodziak, W. J. (2012). Traditional conclusions in footwear examinations versus the use of the bayesian approach and likelihood ratio: A review of a recent UK appellate court decision. Law, Probability and Risk, 11(4), 279–287. https://doi.org/10.1093/lpr/mgs018

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free