Reply to Hicks et al 2017, Reply to Morrison et al 2016 Refining the relevant population in forensic voice comparison, Reply to Hicks et al 2015 The importance of distinguishing info from evidence/observations when formulating propositions

TL;DR

This paper discusses the formulation of hypotheses in forensic voice comparison, focusing on defining the relevant population and clarifying previous disagreements to improve collaboration and reduce misunderstandings.

Contribution

It clarifies previous debates on defining relevant populations in forensic voice comparison and emphasizes the need for collaboration to avoid misunderstandings.

Findings

Clarifies the formulation of hypotheses in forensic voice comparison

Highlights the importance of defining relevant populations accurately

Calls for greater collaboration among researchers

Abstract

The present letter to the editor is one in a series of publications discussing the formulation of hypotheses (propositions) for the evaluation of strength of forensic evidence. In particular, the discussion focusses on the issue of what information may be used to define the relevant population specified as part of the different-speaker hypothesis in forensic voice comparison. The previous publications in the series are: Hicks et al. 2015 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2015.06.008>; Morrison et al. (2016) <http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2016.07.002>; Hicks et al. (2017) <http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2017.04.005>. The latter letter to the editor mostly resolves the apparent disagreement between the two groups of authors. We briefly discuss one outstanding point of apparent disagreement, and attempt to correct a misinterpretation of our earlier remarks. We believe that at this point there is no actual disagreement, and that both groups of authors are calling for greater collaboration in order to reduce the likelihood of future misunderstandings.