Value of DNA tests: A decision perspective

Journal of Forensic Sciences

Volumn 52, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 31-39

  Taroni, Franco ^a   Bozza, Silvia ^b   Bernard, Magali ^a   Champod, Christophe ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LAUSANNE   (Switzerland)

^b CA' FOSCARI UNIVERSITY OF VENICE   (Italy)

Author keywords

Decision analysis; DNA evidence; Evidence evaluation; Forensic science; Interpretation; Utility theory

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COURT; DECISION MAKING; DNA DETERMINATION; FORENSIC SCIENCE; LAW; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

BAYES THEOREM; DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; DNA; DNA FINGERPRINTING; FORENSIC GENETICS; HUMANS; LIKELIHOOD FUNCTIONS; TANDEM REPEAT SEQUENCES;

EID: 33845880121     PISSN: 00221198     EISSN: 15564029     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2006.00302.x     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Evett IW, Weir BS. Interpreting DNA evidence. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 1998.
2. Buckleton JS, Triggs CM. Relatedness and DNA: are we taking it seriously enough? Forensic Sci Int 2005;152:115-9.
3. Triggs CM, Buckleton JS. Logical implications of applying the principles of population genetics to the interpretation of DNA profiling evidence. Forensic Sci Int 2002;128:108-14.
4. Thomson JA, Pilotti V, Stevens P, Ayres KL, Debenham MN. Validation of short tandem repeat analysis for the investigation of cases of diputed paternity. Forensic Sci Int 1999;100:1-16.
5. Thomson JA, Ayres KL, Pilotti V, Barrett MN, Walker JIH, Debenham MN. Analysis of disputed single-parent/child and sibling relationships using 16 STR loci. Int J Leg Med 2001;115:128-34.
6. Taroni F, Bozza S, Aitken CGG. Decision analysis in forensic science. J Forensic Sci 2005;50(4):894-905.
7. Hacking I. An introduction to probability and inductive logic. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2001.
8. Clemen RT. Making hard decisions. 2nd ed. Belmont, CA: Duxbury Press, 1996.
9. Lindley DV. Making decisions. 2nd ed. London, U.K.: John Wiley and Sons, 1985.
10. Lindley DV. Probability. In: Aitken CGG, Stoney DA, editors. The use of statistics in forensic science. New York, NY: Ellis Horwood, 1991:27-50.
11. Lindley DV. The present position in Bayesian statistics. Stat Sci 1990;5:44-89.
12. Taroni F, Bozza S, Biedermann A. Two items of evidence, no putative source: an inference problem in forensic intelligence. J Forensic Sci 2006, In press.
13. Aitken CGG, Taroni F. Statistics and the evaluation of evidence for forensic scientists. 2nd ed. Chichester, U.K.: John Wiley and Sons, 2004.
14. Cook R, Evett IW, Jackson G, Jones PJ, Lambert JA. A hierarchy of propositions: deciding which level to address in casework. Sci Justice 1998;38:231-9.
15. Cook R, Evett IW, Jackson G, Jones P, Lambert JA. A model for case assessment and interpretation. Sci Justice 1998;38:151-6.
16. Evett IW, Jackson G, Lambert JA, McCrossan S. The impact of the principles of evidence interpretation and the structure and content of statements. Sci Justice 2000;40:233-9.
17. Evett IW, Foreman LA, Weir BS. Letter to the editor. Biometrics 2000;56:1274-5.
18. Foreman LA, Evett IW. Statistical analyses to support forensic interpretation for a new ten-locus STR profiling system. Int J Leg Med 2001;114:147-55.
19. Evett IW, Foreman LA, Jackson G, Lambert JA. DNA profiling: a discussion of issues relating to the reporting of very small match probabilities. Crim Law Rev 2000;5:341-55.
20. Balding DJ, Nichols RA. A method for quantifying differentiation between populations at multi-allelic loci and its implications for investigating identity and paternity. In: Weir BS, editor. Human identification: the use of DNA markers. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1995:3-12.
21. Jensen FV. Bayesian networks and decision graphs. New York, NY: Springer, 2001.
22. Clemen RT, Reilly T. Making hard decisions with DecisionTool. Melbourne, Australia: Duxbury Thomson Learning, 2004.
23. Biedermann A, Taroni F. Bayesian networks and probabilistic reasoning about scientific evidence when there is a lack of data. Forensic Sci Int 2006;157:163-7.