Forensic experts use specialized training and knowledge to enable other members of the judicial system to make better informed and more just decisions. Factfinders, in particular, are tasked with judging how much weight to give to experts' reports and opinions. Many references describe assessing evidential weight from the perspective of a forensic expert. Some recognize that stakeholders are each responsible for evaluating their own weight of evidence. Morris (1971, 1974, 1977) provided a general framework for recipients to update their own uncertainties after learning an expert's opinion. Although this framework is normative under Bayesian axioms and several forensic scholars advocate the use of Bayesian reasoning, few resources describe its application in forensic science. This paper addresses this gap by examining how recipients can combine principles of science and Bayesian reasoning to evaluate their own likelihood ratios for expert opinions. This exercise helps clarify how an expert's role depends on whether one envisions recipients to be logical and scientific or deferential. Illustrative examples with an expert's opinion expressed as a categorical conclusion, likelihood ratio, or range of likelihood ratios, or with likelihood ratios from multiple experts, each reveal the importance and influence of validation data for logical recipients' interpretations.

翻译：法医学专家凭借专业训练与知识，协助司法系统其他成员作出更明智、更公正的裁决。事实认定者尤其需要评估专家报告及意见的权重。诸多文献描述了从法医学专家视角评估证据权重的方法，部分学者亦认识到各利益相关方需自行评估其证据权重。Morris (1971, 1974, 1977) 提出了一个通用框架，使接收者能在获悉专家意见后更新自身不确定性。尽管该框架在贝叶斯公理体系下具有规范性，且多位法医学学者倡导应用贝叶斯推理，但鲜有资源阐述其在法医学中的具体应用。本文旨在弥补这一空白，探讨接收者如何融合科学原理与贝叶斯推理，评估其对专家意见的似然比。这一过程有助于阐明：当接收者被视为逻辑科学型或被动顺从型时，专家角色呈现何种差异。通过将专家意见表述为分类结论、似然比、似然比区间或多位专家提供的似然比等示范案例，本文揭示了验证数据对逻辑型接收者解释过程的重要性及其影响。