Bibliography of responses to R v T and ensuing discussion
page maintained by Geoffrey Stewart Morison
Please advise me of any additional references which you think should be added.
last update: 4 June 2014
- R v T  EWCA Crim 2439
- Squibb-Williams K (2010) Footwear database analysis by experts using Bayesian statistics (R v T  EWCA Crim 2439). Document posted on Internet.
- Jamieson A, Meakin G (2010) Experience is the name that everyone gives to their mistakes. The Barrister, 45.
- Jamieson A (2011) Commentary on the case of R v T involving footwear evidence and Bayes’ approach. Document posted on Internet.
The position statement
- Evett IW, and other signatories (2011) Expressing evaluative opinions: A position statement. Science & Justice, 51, 12.
Early full-length refereed responses
- Berger CEH, Buckleton J, Champod C, Evett IW, Jackson G (2011) Evidence evaluation: A response to the Court of Appeal judgment in R v T. Science & Justice, 51, 4349.
- Redmayne M, Roberts P, Aitken CGG, Jackson G (2011) Forensic science evidence in question. Criminal Law Review, 5, 347356.
- no URL found - please advise me if you know of an appropriate URL
- Robertson B, Vignaux GA, Berger CEH (2011) Extending the confusion about Bayes. Modern Law Review, 74, 444455.
- Morrison GS (2012). The likelihood-ratio framework and forensic evidence in court: A response to R v T. International Journal of Evidence and Proof, 16, 129.
Short responses / comments
- Facey OE, Davis RJ (2011) Re: Expressing evaluative opinions; A position statement. Science & Justice, 51, 212.
- Fenton NE (2011) Improve statistics in court. Nature, Vol. 479, 3 November 2011, 3637.
- Neumann C, Evett IW, Skerrett J (2012) Quantifying the weight of evidence from a forensic fingerprint comparison: A new paradigm. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society A, 175, 371415.
- see discussion by:
- Aitken CGG
- Balding DJ
- Kaye DH
- Neumann C, Evett IW, Skerrett J
Discussion chain in Science & Justice
- Faigman D, Jamieson A, Noziglia C, Robertson J, Wheate R (2011) Response to Aitken et al on R v T. Science & Justice, 51, 213214.
- Berger CEH, Buckleton J, Champod C, Evett IW, Jackson J (2011) Response to Faigman et al. Science & Justice, 51, 215.
- Jamieson A (2012) More on the Bayesian approach and the LR. Science & Justice, 52, 202.
- Berger CEH, Buckleton J, Champod C, Evett IW, Jackson J (2012) Response to Jamieson regarding “More on the Bayesian Approach and the LR”. Science & Justice, 52, 203.
Special issue of Law, Probability & Risk
- Aitken CGG (2012) An introduction to a debate. Law, Probability & Risk, 11, 255258.
- Biedermann A,Taroni F, Champod C (2012) How to assign a likelihood ratio in a footwear mark case: An analysis and discussion in the light of R v T. Law, Probability & Risk, 11, 259277.
- Bodziak WJ (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, 279287.
- Ligertwood A, Edmond G (2012) Expressing evaluative forensic science opinions in a court of law. Law, Probability & Risk, 11, 289302.
- Nordgaard A, Rasmusson B (2012) The likelihood ratio as value of evidence- More than a question of numbers. Law, Probability & Risk, 11, 303315.
- Sjerps MJ, Berger CEH (2012). How clear is transparent? Reporting expert reasoning in legal cases. Law, Probability & Risk, 11, 317329.
- Hamer D (2012) Discussion paper: The R v T controversy: forensic evidence, law and logic. Law, Probability & Risk, 11, 331345.
- Thompson WC (2012). Bad cases make bad law: Reactions to R v T. Law, Probability & Risk, 11, 347359.
- Biedermann A,Taroni F, Champod C (2012) Reply to Hamer: The R v T controversy: forensic evidence, law and logic. Law, Probability & Risk, 11, 361362.
- Bodziak WJ (2012) A Final Comment. Law, Probability & Risk, 11, 363364.
- Ligertwood A, Edmond G (2012) Discussion paper: A just measure of probability. Law, Probability & Risk, 11, 365369.
- Nordgaard A, Rasmusson B (2012) A short reply on the discussion by D. Hamer. Law, Probability & Risk, 11, 371.
- Berger CEH, Sjerps MJ (2012) Discussion paper: Reaction to Hamer and Thompson in LPR. Law, Probability & Risk, 11, 373375.
Other relevant full-length papers
- Risinger DM (2013) Reservations about likelihood ratios (and some other aspects of forensic ‘Bayesianism’). Law, Probability & Risk, 12, 6373.
- Fenton NE, Neil M (2012) On limiting the use of Bayes in presenting forensic evidence. Unpublished manuscript.
- Hancock S, Morgan-Smith R, Buckleton J (2012) The interpretation of shoeprint comparison class correspondences. Science & Justice, 52, 243248.
- Curran JM (2013) Is forensic science the last bastion of resistance against statistics? Science & Justice, 53, 251252.
- Biedermann A, Taroni F, Aitken CGG (2014) Liberties and constraints of the normative approach to evaluation and decision in forensic science: a discussion towards overcoming some common misconceptions. Law, Probability & Risk, 13, 181191.
Popular press / blogs
- Sanai A (2011) A formula for justice. The Guardian, 3 October 2011, 12.
- Sanai A (2011) Mathematics in the dock. Nothing Shocks Me, I’m A Scientist. Blog entry, 3 October 2011.
- Shalizi CH (2011) Bayesianism not banned in Britain. Three-Toed Sloth. Blog entry, 27 October 2011.