Back to Home | Research | Publications

• Page 13, footnote 21, reference to Thompson 2009 is to Thompson (2009) “Interpretation: observer effects”, in Wiley Encyclopedia of Forensic Science, Jamieson, A., Moenssens, A. (eds). John Wiley & Sons Ltd., Chichester, UK, pp 1575-1579.
• Page 22, footnote 53, reference to Thompson 2009 is to Thompson (2009) “Painting the target around the matching profile: the Texas sharpshooter fallacy in forensic DNA interpretation.” Law Probabability and Risk 2009;8:257–76
• Page 29, first paragraph, re-write the sentence “The initial investigation had missed or ignored some of these factors, perhaps because they cast a negative light on individuals who were involved in the initial investigation.” as “The initial investigation had missed or ignored some of these factors, perhaps because they cast a negative light on individuals who were involved in it.”
• Page 29, second paragraph, line 8, “instant” should be “initial”
• Page 37, Table 1, “p<10^10" should be “p<10^{-10}"
• Page 39, near bottom, in the verbal form of Bayes rule, “POSTERIOR ODDS = PRIOR ODDS × LIKELIHOOD RATIO”, it should perhaps have been emphasised (with an eye on the point in Appendix 1) that these odds and the likelihood ratio must be coherently ordered (i.e. odds for H1 vs H2 and likelihood ratio for H1 vs H2, or vice versa). To clarify, replace the clause “the ratio of the probabilities of a positive result among the ill and the well, 90% divided by 1% ie 90” by “the ratio of the probabilities of a positive result among the well and the ill, 1% divided by 90% ie 1/90” in the sentence below Table 2
• Page 43-47, Example 2, there was a mismatch between the (artificial) data as tabulated and analysed, and that described in the text. Correcting this leaves the qualitative message unaltered. The revised text is shown (with changes tracked) in this pdf, and here are the modified scripts and transcripts.
• Page 58, typesetting error runs two references together (Koehler 1993 and The Law Commission 2015)