Towards a uniform framework for reporting opinions in forensic science casework

Science and Justice - Journal of the Forensic Science Society

Volumn 38, Issue 3, 1998, Pages 198-202

  Evett, I W ^a  

^a FORENSIC SCIENCE SERVICE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BAYES THEOREM; CONFERENCE PAPER; FORENSIC SCIENCE; PROBABILITY;

EID: 0031821209     PISSN: 13550306     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S1355-0306(98)72105-7     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (13)

1. Brown GA and Cropp PL. Standardised nomenclature in forensic science. Journal of the Forensic Science Society 1987; 27: 393-399.
2. Rudram DA. Interpretation of scientific evidence. Science & Justice 1996; 36: 133-138.
3. McAlexander, TV, Beck J and Dick R The standardization of handwriting opinion terminology. Journal of Forensic Sciences 1991, 36: 311-319.
4. Anon. Standard Terminology for Expressing Conclusions of Forensic Document (sic). Designation: E 1658-96. West Conshohocken, PA. American Society for Testing and Materials, 1996.
5. Stoney DA. What made us ever think we could individualize using statistics. Journal of the Forensic Science Society 1991; 31: 197-199.
6. Even IW and Weir BS. Interpreting DNA Evidence: Statistical Genetics for Forensic Scientists. Sinauer, Sunderland MA 1998.
7. Robertson B and Vignaux GA. Interpreting Evidence: Evaluating Forensic Science in the Courtroom. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 1995.
8. Aitken CGG. Statistics and the Evaluation of Evidence for Forensic Scientists. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 1995.
9. Taroni F, Champod C and Margot P. Forerunners of Bayesianism in early forensic science. Jurimetrics 1998; 38: 183-200.
10. Mosteller F and Wallace DL. Applied Bayesian and Classical Inference - the Case of the Federalist Papers. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1964.
11. Finkelstein MO and Fairley WB. A Bayesian approach to identification evidence. Harvard Law Review 1970; 83: 489-517.
12. Thompson WC and Schumann EL. Interpretation of statistical evidence in criminal trials - the prosecutor's fallacy and the defence attorney's fallacy. Law and Human Behavior 1987; 11: 167-187.
13. Cook R, Evett IW, Jackson G, Jones PL and Lambert JA. A model for case assessment and interpretation. Science & Justice 1998;.38: 151-156.