The nature of forensic science opinion - A possible framework to guide thinking and practice in investigations and in court proceedings

Science and Justice - Journal of the Forensic Science Society

Volumn 46, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 33-44

  Jackson, G ^a   Jones, S ^b   Booth, G ^c   Champod, C ^d   Evett, I W ^b  

^a Advance Forensic Science   (United Kingdom)

^b FORENSIC SCIENCE SERVICE   (United Kingdom)

^c Forensic Science Service   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY OF LAUSANNE   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Bayes; Evaluation; Evidence; Expertise; Forensic science; Investigation; Likelihood ratio; Opinion; Probability

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COURT; CRIME; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; FORENSIC MEDICINE; GENERAL PRACTICE; PRACTICE GUIDELINE;

EID: 33746408754     PISSN: 13550306     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S1355-0306(06)71565-9     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Cook R, Evett IW, Jackson G, Jones PJ, and Lambert JA. A model for case assessment and interpretation. Science and Justice 1998; 38: 151-156.
2. Cook R, Evett IW, Jackson G, Jones PJ, and Lambert JA. A hierarchy of propositions: Deciding which level to address in casework. Science and Justice 1998; 38: 231-239.
3. Evett IW, Jackson G, and Lambert JA. More on the hierarchy of propositions: Exploring the distinction between explanations and propositions. Science and Justice 2000; 40: 3-10.
4. Evett IW, Jackson G, Lambert JA, and McCrossan S. The impact of the principles of evidence interpretation on the structure and content of statements. Science and Justice 2000; 40: 233-239.
5. Jackson G. The scientist and the scales of justice. Science and Justice 2000; 40: 81-85.
6. Champed C, Evett IW, and Jackson G. Establishing the most appropriate databases for addressing source level propositions. Science and Justice 2004; 44: 153-164.
7. Evert IW. Avoiding the transposed conditional. Science and Justice 1995; 35: 127-131.
8. Champod C and Evett IW. A probabilistic approach to fingerprint identification. Journal of Forensic Identification 2001; 51(2): 101-122.
9. Champod C, Baldwin D, Taroni F, and Buckleton JS. Firearm and Tool Mark Identification; the Bayesian Approach. Forensic Science Service Report RR830, March 2003.
10. Nordby JJ. Dead Reckoning: The Art of Forensic Detection. CRC, Boca Raton, FL, 2000.
11. Jaynes, ET. Probability Theory: The Logic of Science. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2003.
12. Good IJ. Weight of evidence and the Bayesian likelihood ratio, in The Use of Statistics in Forensic Science (Eds: Aitken CGG and Stoney DA). Ellis Horwood, Chichester, UK, 1991, pp. 85-106.
13. Evett IW, Gill PD, Jackson G, Whitaker J, and Champod C. Interpreting small quantities of DNA: The hierarchy of propositions and the use of Bayesian networks. Journal of Forensic Sciences 2002; 47: 520-530.
14. Saks MJ, Risinger DM, Rosenthal R, and Thompson WC. Context effects in forensic science: A review and application of the science of science to crime laboratory practice in the United States. Science and Justice 2003; 43: 77-90.
15. De Forest P. Recapturing the essence of criminalistics. Science and Justice 1999; 39: 196-208.
16. Jamieson A. A rational approach to the principles and practice of crime scene investigation: 1. Principles. Science and Justice 2004; 44: 3-7.
17. Bierderman A, Taroni F, Delemont O, Semandeni C, and Davison AC. The evaluation of evidence in the forensic investigation of fire incidents (Part I): An approach using Bayesian networks. Forensic Science International 2005; 147: 49-57.
18. Bierderman A, Taroni F, Delemont O, Semandeni C, and Davison AC. The evaluation of evidence in the forensic investigation of fire incidents (Part II): Practical examples of the use of Bayesian networks. Forensic Science International 2005; 147: 59-69.