Interpretation of scientific evidence

Science and Justice - Journal of the Forensic Science Society

Volumn 36, Issue 3, 1996, Pages 133-138

  Rudram, D A ^a  

^a FORENSIC SCIENCE SERVICE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CRIMINAL JUSTICE; FORENSIC SCIENCE; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; POLICE; PROBABILITY; REVIEW;

EID: 0029741409     PISSN: 13550306     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S1355-0306(96)72587-X     Document Type: Article

References (11)

1. Ramsay M. The effectiveness of the forensic science service. Home Office Research Study No 92. HMSO, London 1987 (ISBN 0 11 340842 0)
2. Ormrod R. Scientific evidence in the judicial process. 33rd Kettle Memorial Lecture 1982, Bulletin of Royal Society of Pathology: 42, 1982.
3. Preece v HM Advocate Criminal Law Review 1981; 783.
4. R v Ward. Criminal Law Review 1992; 312.
5. R v Maguire and Others. 2 All England Law Reports 1992: 433
6. May J. Second report on the Maguire case. HMSO, London 1992 (ISBN 0 10 229693 6)
7. Lichtenstein S and Newman JR. Empirical scaling of common verbal phrases associated with numerical probabilities. Psychonomic Science 1967; 9: 563-564.
8. Beyth-Marom R. How probable is probable? A numerical translation of verbal probability expressions. Journal of Forecasting 1982; 1: 257-269.
9. Craddock JG, Lamb P and Moffat AC. Problems of written communication: understanding and misunderstanding forensic scientist's statements. Home Office Central Research and Services Establishment 1989; Technical Note 691.
10. Satterthwaite J and Lambert J. Interpreting the interpretations, a survey to assess the effectiveness of conclusions in statements written by forensic scientists. Home Office Central Research and Services Establishment 1989; Technical Note 714.
11. Brown GA and Cropp PL. Standardised nomenclature in forensic science. Journal of the Forensic Science Society 1987; 27; 393-399.