Bibliography of responses to R v T and ensuing discussion

http://forensic-evaluation.net/rvt/

page maintained by Geoffrey Stewart Morison

Please advise me of any additional references which you think should be added.

last update: 4 June 2014

Ruling

• R v T [2010] EWCA Crim 2439
  • http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2010/2439.pdf
    
    

Early comments

• Squibb-Williams K (2010) Footwear database analysis by experts using Bayesian statistics (R v T [2010] EWCA Crim 2439). Document posted on Internet.
  • http://www.forensic-science-society.org.uk/news/CPSAnnouncement
    
    

• Jamieson A, Meakin G (2010) Experience is the name that everyone gives to their mistakes. The Barrister, 45.
  • http://www.barristermagazine.com/archive-articles/issue-45/experience-is-the-name-that-everyone-gives-to-their-mistakes.html
    
    

• Jamieson A (2011) Commentary on the case of R v T involving footwear evidence and Bayes’ approach. Document posted on Internet.
  • http://www.theforensicinstitute.com/Articles/Commentary%20on%20RvT.htm
    
    

The position statement

• Evett IW, and other signatories (2011) Expressing evaluative opinions: A position statement. Science & Justice, 51, 1–2.
  • doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.01.002
    
    

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, 43–49.
  • doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.03.005
    
    

• Redmayne M, Roberts P, Aitken CGG, Jackson G (2011) Forensic science evidence in question. Criminal Law Review, 5, 347–356.
  • 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, 444–455.
  • doi:10.1111/j.1468-2230.2011.00857.x
    
    

• 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, 1–29.
  • doi:10.1350/ijep.2012.16.1.390
    
    

Short responses / comments

• Facey OE, Davis RJ (2011) Re: Expressing evaluative opinions; A position statement. Science & Justice, 51, 212.
  • doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.06.001
    
    

• Fenton NE (2011) Improve statistics in court. Nature, Vol. 479, 3 November 2011, 36–37.
  • doi:10.1038/479036a
    
    

• 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, 371–415.
  • doi:10.1111/j.1467-985X.2011.01027.x
    
    
  • 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, 213–214.
  • doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.09.001
    
    

• Berger CEH, Buckleton J, Champod C, Evett IW, Jackson J (2011) Response to Faigman et al. Science & Justice, 51, 215.
  • doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.09.006
    
    

• Jamieson A (2012) More on the Bayesian approach and the LR. Science & Justice, 52, 202.
  • doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2012.05.001
    
    

• 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.
  • doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2012.06.004
    
    

Special issue of Law, Probability & Risk

• Aitken CGG (2012) An introduction to a debate. Law, Probability & Risk, 11, 255–258.
  • doi:10.1093/lpr/mgs014
    
    

• 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, 259–277.
  • doi:10.1093/lpr/mgs015
    
    

• 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, 279–287.
  • doi:10.1093/lpr/mgs018
    
    

• Ligertwood A, Edmond G (2012) Expressing evaluative forensic science opinions in a court of law. Law, Probability & Risk, 11, 289–302.
  • doi:10.1093/lpr/mgs016
    
    

• Nordgaard A, Rasmusson B (2012) The likelihood ratio as value of evidence- More than a question of numbers. Law, Probability & Risk, 11, 303–315.
  • doi:10.1093/lpr/mgs019
    
    

• Sjerps MJ, Berger CEH (2012). How clear is transparent? Reporting expert reasoning in legal cases. Law, Probability & Risk, 11, 317–329.
  • doi:10.1093/lpr/mgs017
    
    

• Hamer D (2012) Discussion paper: The R v T controversy: forensic evidence, law and logic. Law, Probability & Risk, 11, 331–345.
  • doi:10.1093/lpr/mgs021
    
    

• Thompson WC (2012). Bad cases make bad law: Reactions to R v T. Law, Probability & Risk, 11, 347–359.
  • doi:10.1093/lpr/mgs020
    
    

• Biedermann A,Taroni F, Champod C (2012) Reply to Hamer: The R v T controversy: forensic evidence, law and logic. Law, Probability & Risk, 11, 361–362.
  • doi:10.1093/lpr/mgs022
    
    

• Bodziak WJ (2012) A Final Comment. Law, Probability & Risk, 11, 363–364.
  • doi:10.1093/lpr/mgs026
    
    

• Ligertwood A, Edmond G (2012) Discussion paper: A just measure of probability. Law, Probability & Risk, 11, 365–369.
  • doi:10.1093/lpr/mgs023
    
    

• Nordgaard A, Rasmusson B (2012) A short reply on the discussion by D. Hamer. Law, Probability & Risk, 11, 371.
  • doi:10.1093/lpr/mgs025
    
    

• Berger CEH, Sjerps MJ (2012) Discussion paper: Reaction to Hamer and Thompson in LPR. Law, Probability & Risk, 11, 373–375.
  • doi:10.1093/lpr/mgs024
    
    

Other relevant full-length papers

• Risinger DM (2013) Reservations about likelihood ratios (and some other aspects of forensic ‘Bayesianism’). Law, Probability & Risk, 12, 63–73.
  • doi:10.1093/lpr/mgs011
    
    

• Fenton NE, Neil M (2012) On limiting the use of Bayes in presenting forensic evidence. Unpublished manuscript.
  • http://www.eecs.qmul.ac.uk/~norman/papers/likelihood_ratio.pdf
    
    

• Hancock S, Morgan-Smith R, Buckleton J (2012) The interpretation of shoeprint comparison class correspondences. Science & Justice, 52, 243–248.
  • doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2012.06.002
    
    

• Curran JM (2013) Is forensic science the last bastion of resistance against statistics? Science & Justice, 53, 251–252.
  • doi: 10.1016/j.scijus.2013.07.001
    
    

• 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, 181–191.
  • doi:10.1093/lpr/mgu009
    
    

Popular press / blogs

• Sanai A (2011) A formula for justice. The Guardian, 3 October 2011, 12.
  • http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/oct/02/formula-justice-bayes-theorem-miscarriage
    
    

• Sanai A (2011) Mathematics in the dock. Nothing Shocks Me, I’m A Scientist. Blog entry, 3 October 2011.
  • http://angelasaini.blogspot.com.au/2011/10/mathematics-in-dock.html
    
    

• Shalizi CH (2011) Bayesianism not banned in Britain. Three-Toed Sloth. Blog entry, 27 October 2011.
  • http://bactra.org/weblog/821.html