A response to: "NIST experts urge caution in use of courtroom evidence presentation method"

TL;DR

This paper critiques a NIST press release that cautions against using likelihood ratios in forensic evidence, arguing it may hinder scientific progress despite valid concerns.

Contribution

It provides a detailed analysis of the NIST stance, highlighting its flaws and defending the use of likelihood ratios in forensic evidence presentation.

Findings

NIST press release may impede forensic analysis progress

The critique identifies strawman arguments in NIST's position

Likelihood ratios remain valuable in forensic evidence interpretation

Abstract

A press release from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)could potentially impede progress toward improving the analysis of forensic evidence and the presentation of forensic analysis results in courts in the United States and around the world. "NIST experts urge caution in use of courtroom evidence presentation method" was released on October 12, 2017, and was picked up by the phys.org news service. It argues that, except in exceptional cases, the results of forensic analyses should not be reported as "likelihood ratios". The press release, and the journal article by NIST researchers Steven P. Lund & Harri Iyer on which it is based, identifies some legitimate points of concern, but makes a strawman argument and reaches an unjustified conclusion that throws the baby out with the bathwater.