The consequences of potentially differing distributions of the refractive indices of glass fragments from control and recovered sources

Forensic Science International

Volumn 140, Issue 2-3, 2004, Pages 185-193

  Newton, A W N ^a   Curran, J M ^b   Triggs, C M ^c   Buckleton, J S ^a  

^a MT ALBERT RESEARCH CENTRE   (New Zealand)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WAIKATO   (New Zealand)

^c UNIVERSITY OF AUCKLAND   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

Glass; Interpretation; Refractive index; Surface effects

Indexed keywords

GLASS;

ARTICLE; FORENSIC MEDICINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REFRACTION INDEX; SURFACE PROPERTY;

EID: 1242316226     PISSN: 03790738     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2003.11.030     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Nelson D.F., Revell B.C. Backward fragmentation from breaking glass. J. Forensic Sci. Soc. 7:1967;58-61.
2. J.M. Curran, T.N. Hicks, J. Buckleton, Forensic Interpretation of Glass Evidence, CRC Press, London, 2000.
3. Evett I.W., Buckleton J. The interpretation of glass evidence - a practical approach. J. Forensic Sci. Soc. 30:1990;215-223.
4. Walsh K.A.J., Buckleton J.S., Triggs C.M. A practical example on the interpretation of glass evidence. Sci. Justice. 36:1996;213-218.
5. Evett I.W. The interpretation of refractive index measurements. Forensic Sci. Int. 9:1977;209-217.
6. Evett I.W. The interpretation of refractive index measurements II. Forensic Sci. Int. 12:1978;37-47.
7. Evett I.W., Lambert J.A. The interpretation of refractive index measurements III. Forensic Sci. Int. 20:1982;237-245.
8. Evett I.W., Lambert J.A. The interpretation of refractive index measurements IV. Forensic Sci. Int. 24:1984;149-163.
9. Evett I.W., Lambert J.A. The interpretation of refractive index measurements V. Forensic Sci. Int. 27:1985;97-110.
10. Evett I.W., Lambert J.A. The interpretation of refractive index measurements VI. The computer program RUNG. Forensic Sci. Int. 28:1985;251-268.
11. Evett I.W. A Bayesian approach to the problem of interpreting glass evidence in forensic science casework. J. Forensic Sci. Soc. 26:1986;3-18.
12. Triggs C.M., Walsh K.A.J., Buckleton J.S. Assessing probabilities considering eyewitness evidence. Sci. Justice. 35:1995;263-266.
13. Triggs C.M., Curran J.M., Buckleton J.S., Walsh K.A.J. The grouping problem in forensic glass analysis: a divisive approach. Forensic Sci. Int. 85:1997;1-14.
14. C.J. Wild, G.A.F. Seber, Chance Encounters, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 2000, pp. 413-414.
15. Welch B.L. The significance of the difference between two means when the population variances are unequal. Biometrika. 29:1937;350-362.
16. Best D.J., Raynor J.C.W. Welch's approximate solution for the Behrens-Fisher problem. Technometrics. 29:1987;205-210.
17. Locke J., Scranage J. Breaking of flat glass, part 3: Surface particles from windows. Forensic Sci. Int. 57:1992;73-80.
18. Zoro J.A., Locke J., Bademus D.R.S.O., Perryman A.C. An investigation of refractive index anomalies at the surface of glass objects and windows. Forensic Sci. Int. 39:1988;127-141.
19. Ojena S.M., De Forest P.R. Precise refractive index determination by the immersion method, using phase contrast microscopy and the Mettler hot stage. J. Forensic Sci. Soc. 12:1972;315-319.