English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

Meester and Sjerps tackle difficult issues, and many of their comments and suggestions have much to commend them. However, I do not think that they have resolved the difficulties fully satisfactorily. I first part company with them when they speak, in the third paragraph of the Introduction, of a ‘randomly selected member of the population’, with many subsequent repetitions of similar phrases. In crime investigations no-one, we hope, is selected randomly. The concept of ‘random man’ has captured the imagination of statisticians and the general public since Quetelet in the mid19th century, in some instances to good effect. In the forensic identification setting, however, I believe that the concept is unnecessary and dangerous. Consider perhaps the simplest setting of a single individual, the suspect S, whose DNA profile matches that obtained from a single crime stain and is presumed to be that of the culprit C . Here, the relevant version of Bayes’ theorem is

Comment on: Why the effect of prior odds should accompany the likelihood ratio when reporting DNA evidence