Two items of evidence, no putative source: An inference problem in forensic intelligence

Journal of Forensic Sciences

Volumn 51, Issue 6, 2006, Pages 1350-1361

  Taroni, Franco ^a   Bozza, Silvia ^b   Biedermann, Alex ^a,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LAUSANNE   (Switzerland)

^b CA' FOSCARI UNIVERSITY OF VENICE   (Italy)

^c Federal Office of Environment   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Bayes' theorem; Decision theory; Forensic intelligence; Forensic science; Graphical models; Scientific evidence

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BAYES THEOREM; DECISION THEORY; EVALUATION; FORENSIC IDENTIFICATION; INTELLIGENCE; MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS; MATHEMATICAL MODEL; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; SIMULATION; THEORETICAL STUDY;

BAYES THEOREM; DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; FORENSIC SCIENCES; HUMANS; MODELS, THEORETICAL;

EID: 33845570804     PISSN: 00221198     EISSN: 15564029     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2006.00272.x     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Ribaux O, Girod A, Walsh S, Margot P, Mizrahi S, Clivaz V. Forensic intelligence and crime analysis. Law Prob Risk 2003;2:47-60.
2. Deadman HA. Fiber evidence and the Wayne Williams trial (part I). FBI law enforcement bulletin, 1984 March, 12-20.
3. Deadman HA. Fiber evidence and the Wayne Williams trial (part II). FBI law enforcement bulletin, 1984 May 10-19.
4. Aitken CGG, Taroni F. Statistics and the evaluation of evidence for forensic scientists. 2nd ed. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.
5. Cook R, Evett IW, Jackson G, Jones P, Lambert J. A hierarchy of propositions: deciding which level to address in casework. Sci Justice 1998;38:231-9.
6. Ribaux O, Margot P. Case based reasoning in criminal intelligence using forensic case data. Sci Justice 2003;43:135-43.
7. Aitken CGG, Gammerman A. Probabilistic reasoning in evidential assessment. J Forensic Sci Soc 1989;29:303-16.
8. Dawid A, Evett IW. Using a graphical model to assist the evaluation of complicated patterns of evidence. J Forensic Sci 1997;42:226-31.
9. Garbolino P, Taroni F. Evaluation of scientific evidence using Bayesian networks. Forensic Sci Int 2002;125:149-55.
10. Evett IW, Gill P, Jackson G, Whitaker J, Champod C. Interpreting small quantities of DNA: the hierarchy of propositions and the use of Bayesian networks. J Forensic Sci 2002;47:520-30.
11. Taroni F, Biedermann A, Garbolino P, Aitken CGG. A general approach to Bayesian networks for the interpretation of evidence. Forensic Sci Int 2004;139:5-16.
12. Jensen F. Bayesian networks and decision graphs. New York: Springer, 2001.
13. Bertillon A. Instructions signalétiques. Melun: Imprimerie Administrative, 1893.
14. Stoney DA. Relaxation of the assumption of relevance and an application to one-trace and two-trace problems. J Forensic Sci Soc 1994;34:17-21.
15. Evett IW. Establishing the evidential value of a small quantity of material found at a crime scene. J Forensic Sci Soc 1993;33:83-6.
16. Taroni F, Bozza S, Aitken CGG. Decision analysis in forensic science. J Forensic Sci 2005;50:894-905.
17. Cowell R, Dawid A, Lauritzen S, Spiegelhalter D. Probabilistic networks and expert systems. New York: Springer, 1999.
18. Kaplan J. Decision theory and the factfinding process. Stan Law Rev 1968;20:1065-92.
19. Lempert RO. Modeling relevance. Michigan Law Rev 1977;75:1021-57.
20. Ribaux O, Walsh JS, Margot P. The contribution of forensic science to crime analysis and investigation: forensic intelligence. Forensic Sci Int 2006;1569:171-81.