Which likelihood ratio? (Comment on ‘Why the effect of prior odds should accompany the likelihood ratio when reporting DNA evidence’, by Ronald Meester and Marjan Sjerps)

Meester & Sjerps (2003) (henceforth M & S) draw attention to an ambiguity in the definition of 'the likelihood ratio' that can arise with forensic multiple transfer evidence. Here I argue that this is a mathematical artifact and a logical red herring: in particular, for their data and assumptions only the likelihood ratio associated with their 'first set of hypotheses' is suitable for presentation in court.