According to Curran et al (1999)1, the value of forensic glass evidence is derived as
LR = T0 +
f( ¯ X − ¯ Y|sX,sY ) g(¯ Y )
The authors test this likelihood ratio based on a number of diﬀerent experimental situations.
a) Explain, in lay terms, the underlying assumptions being tested in this study, and how the authors test these assumptions.
b) What are the implications of the results of this study for the use of the likelihood ratio as a measure of the value of forensic glass evidence?
The paper by Hiss et al (2007)2 outlines a four part test for the competence of scientiﬁc evidence. This four part test includes aspects of the Frye and Daubert standards for assessing the admissibility of evidence. The paper gives three examples where proper evidence was not provided. For each of the three examples given (Forensic Biology, Forensic Medicine and Forensic Anthropology) describe which parts, if any, of the four part test were failed and how the mistakes might have been prevented.