Select topics in legal evidence and assistance by artificial intelligence techniques

Cybernetics and Systems

Volumn 39, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 333-394

  Nissan, Ephraim ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b NONE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIONICS; CYBERNETICS; KNOWLEDGE BASED SYSTEMS;

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE TECHNIQUES; BACKGROUND KNOWLEDGE (BK); CENTURY (CO); DEONTIC LOGICS; KNOWLEDGE BASED SYSTEMS; LEGAL DOMAINS; LEGAL EVIDENCE;

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE;

EID: 46149125556     PISSN: 01969722     EISSN: 10876553     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/01969720802039537     Document Type: Article

References (197)

1. Abelson, R. P. 1963. Computer simulation of 'hot cognition.' In Computer simulation of personality, edited by S. Tomkins and S. Messick. New York: Wiley.
2. Abelson, R. P. 1979. Differences between belief and knowledge systems. Cognitive Science 3: 355-366.
3. Abelson, R. P. and J. D. Carroll. 1965. Computer simulation of individual belief systems. American Behavioral Scientist 8: 24-30.
4. Aitken, C. 1995. Statistics and the evaluation of evidence for forensic scientists. Chichester, England: Wiley.
5. Allen, R. J. 2001. Artificial intelligence and the evidentiary process: The challenges of formalism and computation. Artificial Intelligence and Law 9(2/3): 99-114.
6. Allen, R. and Redmayne, M., eds. 1997. Bayesianism and juridical proof. Special issue, The International Journal of Evidence and Proof, 1. London: Blackstone, pp. 253-360.
7. Amin, R., Bramer, M., and Emslie, R. 2003. Intelligent data analysis for conservation: Experiments with rhino horn fingerprint identification. Knowledge Based Systems, 16: 5-6.
8. Åqvist, L. 1992. Towards a logical theory of legal evidence: Semantic analysis of the Bolding-Ekelöf degrees of evidential strength. In Expert systems in law, edited by A. A. Martino. Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 67-86.
9. Balding, D. J. and Donnelly, P. 1995. Inferring identity from DNA profile evidence. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A. 92(25): 11741-11745.
10. Ballim, A. and Wilks, Y. 1991. Artificial believers: The ascription of belief. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
11. Ballim, A., By, T., Wilks, Y., and Liske, C. 2001. Modelling agent attitudes in legal reasoning. Computing and Informatics 20(6): 581-624.
12. Barnden, J. A. 2001. Uncertain reasoning about agents' beliefs and reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law 9(2/3): 115-152.
13. Bem, D. J. 1966. Inducing belief in false confessions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 3: 707-710.
14. Benderly, B. L. 1997. Turning a blind eye to mad science. A review of R. Firstman and J. Talan, The death of innocents, Bantam. The Washington Post, November 17, final edn., Section "Style," p. C08.
15. Binder, D. A. and Bergman, P. 1984. Fact investigation: From hypothesis to proof. American Casebook Series. St Paul, Minnesota: West Publ.
16. Blackman, S. J. 1988. Expert systems in case-based law: the rule against hearsay. LL.M. thesis, Faculty of Law, University of British Columbia, Vancouver.
17. Bloy, D. 1996. Criminal law. 2nd edition. Lecture Notes series. London: Cavendish.
18. Bolding, P. O. 1960. Aspects of the burden of proof. Scandinavian Studies in Law 4: 9-28.
19. Brislawn, C. M., Bradley, J. N., Onyshczak, R. J., and Hopper, T. 1996. The FBI compression standard for digitized fingerprint images. Proceedings of the International Society for Optical Engineering, Denver, Colorado, 2847: 344-355.
20. Bugental, D. B., Shennum, W., Frank, M., and Ekman, P. 2000. "True lies:" Children's abuse history and power attributions as influences on deception detection. In Attribution, communication behavior, and close relationships, edited by V. Manusov and J. H. Harvey. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, pp. 248-265.
21. Bull, R. 1979. The influence of stereotypes on person identification. In Psychology, law and legal processes, edited by D.P. Farrington, K. Hawkins, and S.M. Lloyd-Bostock. London: Macmillan, pp. 184-194.
22. Butler, J. M. 2001. Forensic DNA typing: Biology and technology behind STR markers. London: Academic Press.
23. Chance, J. E. and Goldstein, A. G. 1995. The other-race effect and eyewitness identification. In Psychology, law and legal processes, edited by S. L. Sporer, R.S. Malpass, and G. Köhnken. Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 153-176.
24. Ciampolini, A. and Torroni, P. 2004. Using abductive logic agents for modelling judicial evaluation of criminal evidence. Applied Artificial Intelligence 18(3-4): 251-275.
25. Cole, S. A. 2001. Suspect identities: a history of fingerprinting and criminal identification. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
26. Costello, B. D., Gunawardena, C. A., and Nadiadi, Y. M. 1994. Automated coincident sequencing for fingerprint identification. Proceedings of the IEE Colloquium on Image Processing for Biometric Measurement, London, pp. 3.1-3.5. London: Institute of Electrical Engineers.
27. Curzon, L. B. 1997. Criminal law. 8th ed. London: Pitman.
28. Cutler, B. L. and Penrod, S. D. 1995. Assessing the accuracy of eyewitness identifications. Chapter 3.3 In Handbook of psychology in legal contexts, edited by R. Bull and D. Carson. Chichester, England: Wiley, pp. 193-213.
29. Dawid, A. P. 1994. The island problem: Coherent use of identification evidence. In Chapter 11 of Aspects of uncertainty: A tribute to D. V. Lindley, edited by P. R. Freeman and A. F. M. Smith. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley, pp. 159-170.
30. Dawid, A. P. 1998. Modelling issues in forensic inference. In 1997 ASA Proceedings, section on Bayesian statistics, Alexandria, VA: The American Statistical Association, pp. 182-186.
31. Dawid, A. P. 2001a. Comment on Stockmarr's 'Likelihood ratios for evaluating DNA evidence when the suspect is found through a database search' (with response by A. Stockmarr). Biometrics 57: 976-980.
32. Dawid, A. P. 2001b. Bayes's theorem and weighing evidence by juries. Research Report 219, April. Department of Statistical Science, University College London.
33. Dawid, A. P. 2002. Bayes's theorem and weighing evidence by juries. In Bayes's theorem, edited by R. Swinburne. Proceedings of the British Academy, Vol. 113, pp. 71-90. London: The British Academy.
34. Dawid, A. P. 2004a. Which likelihood ratio? (Comment on 'Why the effect of prior odds should accompany the likelihood ratio when reporting DNA evidence,' by R. Meester and M. Sjerps). Law, Probability and Risk 3: 65-71.
35. Dawid, A. P. 2004b. Statistics on trial. Research Report 250, December. Department of Statistical Science, University College London.
36. Dawid, A. P. 2005a. Probability and statistics in the law. In Proceedings of the Tenth International Workshop on artificial intelligence and statistics, edited by Z. Ghahramani and R. G. Cowell. January 6-8 2005, Barbados. Also available online at http://tinyurl.com/br8fl.
37. Dawid, A. P. 2005b. Probability and proof. Online Appendix to Analysis of evidence (Second edition), edited by T. J. Anderson, D. A. Schum, and W. L. Twining. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press 2005, p. 94. Available online at http://tinyurl.com/7g3bd.
38. Dawid, A. P. 2006. Statistics and the law. In Evidence, edited by K. Tybjerg, J. Swenson-Wright, and A. Bell. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press (to appear). Also: Research Report 244, May 2004, Department of Statistical Science, University College London, May 2004.
39. Dawid, A. P. and Evett, I. W. 1997. Using a graphical method to assist the evaluation of complicated patterns of evidence. Journal of Forensic Science 42: 226-231.
40. Dawid, A. P. and Mortera, J. 1994. Elementary Watson!: Coherent analysis of forensic evidence. Research Report 136, May. Department of Statistical Science, University College London.
41. Dawid, A. P. and Mortera, J. 1996. Coherent analysis of forensic identification evidence. Journal of the Royal Statistics Society B 58: 425-443.
42. Dawid, A. P. and Evett, I. W. 1998. Authors' response to 'Commentary on Dawid, A. P. and Evett, I. W. Using a graphical method to assist the evaluation of complicated patterns of evidence. J. Forensic Sci. 1997 Mar; 42(2): 226-231' by Ira J. Rimson. Journal of Forensic Science 43: 251.
43. Dawid, A. P. and Mortera, J. 1998. Forensic identification with imperfect evidence. Biometrika 85: 835-849. Correction: 1999. Biometrika 86: 974.
44. Dawid, A. P., van Boxel, D. W., Mortera, J., and Pascali, V. L. 1999. Inference about disputed paternity from an incomplete pedigree using a probabilistic expert system. Bulletin of the International Statistics Institute, Contributed Papers Book 1 58: 241-242.
45. Dawid, A. P. and Pueschel, J. 1999. Hierarchical models for DNA profiling using heterogeneous databases (with Discussion). In Bayesian statistics 6, edited by J. M. Bernardo, J. O. Berger, A. P. Dawid, and A. F. M. Smith. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 187-212.
46. Dawid, A. P., Mortera, J., and Pascali, V. L. 2001. Non-fatherhood or mutation? A probabilistic approach to parental exclusion in paternity testing. Forensic Science International 124: 55-61.
47. Dawid, A. P., Mortera, J., Pascali, V. L., and van Boxel, D. W. 2002. Probabilistic expert systems for forensic inference from genetic markers. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics 29: 577-595.
48. Dawid, A. P., Mortera, J., Dobosz, M., and Pascali, V. L. 2003. Mutations and the probabilistic approach to incompatible paternity tests. In Progress in forensic genetics 9 (Proceedings from the 19th Congress of the International Society for Forensic Haemogenetics), edited by B. Brinkmann and A. Carracedo. International Congress Series, Vol. 1239. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science, pp. 637-638.
49. Dawid, A. P., Mortera, J., and Vicard, P. 2006. Representing and solving complex DNA identification cases using Bayesian networks. In Progress in forensic genetics 11 (Proceedings of the 21st International ISFG Congress). International Congress Series, Vol. 1288. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science, pp. 484-91. Also available online at: doi:10.1016/j.ics.2005.09.115.
50. Dawson, L., Macdonald, L., Ball, J., and "other members of the SoilFit team." 2006. Integration of soil fingerprinting techniques for forensic application (abstract). In Abstract Book of Geoscientists at Crime Scenes: First, Inaugural Meeting of the Geological Society of London, Forensic Geoscience Group, London, 20 December 20006, edited by A. Ruffell. London: The Geological Society of London (http://www.geolsoc.org.uk).
51. Dragoni, A. F. and Animali, S. 2003. Maximal consistency, theory of evidence, and Bayesian conditioning in the investigative domain. Cybernetics and Systems 34(6/7): 419-465.
52. Dror, I. E., Peron, A., Hind, S., and Charlton, D. 2005. When emotions get the better of us: The effect of contextual top-down processing on matching fingerprints. Applied Cognitive Psychology 19(6): 799-809.
53. Easteal, S., McLeod, N., and Reed, K. 1991. DNA profiling: Principles, pitfalls and potential. Chur, Switzerland: Harwood.
54. Ecoff, N. L., Ekman, P., Mage, J. J., and Frank, M. G. 2000. Lie detection and language loss. Nature 405: 139.
55. Egeland, T., Mostad, P., and Olaisen, B. 1997. A computerised method for calculating the probability of pedigrees from genetic data. Science and Justice 37(4): 269-274. (Cf. http://www.nr.no/∼mostad/pater).
56. Ekelöf, P. O. 1964. Free evaluation of evidence. Scandinavian Studies in Law 8. p: 45-66 (Faculty of Law, Stockholm University).
57. Ekman, P. 1981. Mistakes when deceiving. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 364: 269-278.
58. Ekman, P. 1985. Telling lies. New York: Norton.
59. Ekman, P. 1988a. Lying and nonverbal behavior: Theoretical issues and new findings. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 12: 163-175.
60. Ekman, P. 1988b. Self deception and detection of misinformation. In Self-deception: An adaptive mechanism?, edited by J. S. Lockhard and D. L. Paulhus. Engle-wood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, pp. 229-257.
61. Ekman, P. 1989. Why lies fail and what behaviors betray a lie. In Credibility assessment, edited by J.C. Yuille. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer, pp. 71-81.
62. Ekman, P. 1996. Why don't we catch liars? Social Research 63: 801-817.
63. Ekman, P. 1997a. Lying and deception. In Memory for everyday and emotional events, edited by N. L. Stein, P. A. Ornstein, B. Tversky, and C. Brainerd. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, pp. 333-347.
64. Ekman, P. 1997b. Deception, lying and demeanor. In States of mind: American and post-Soviet perspectives on contemporary issues in psychology, edited by D. F. Halpern and A. E. Voiskounsky. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 93-105.
65. Ekman, P. and Frank, M. G. 1993. Lies that fail. In Lying and deception in everyday life, edited by M. Lewis and C. Saarni. New York: Guilford Press, pp. 184-200.
66. Ekman, P. and Friesen, W. V. 1969. Nonverbal leakage and clues to deception. Psychiatry 32: 88-105.
67. Ekman, P. and Friesen, W. V. 1974. Detecting deception from body or face. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 29(3): 288-298.
68. Ekman, P., Friesen, W. V., and O'Sullivan, M. 1988. Smiles when lying. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 54: 414-420.
69. Ekman, P. and O'Sullivan, M. 1989. Hazards in detecting deceit. In Psychological methods for investigation and evidence, edited by D. Raskin. New York: Springer, pp. 297-332.
70. Ekman, P. and O'Sullivan, M. 1991a. Facial expression: Methods, means and mous. In Fundamentals of nonverbal behavior, edited by R. S. Feldman and B. Rime. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, pp. 163-199.
71. Ekman, P. and O'Sullivan, M. 1991b. Who can catch a liar. American Psychologist 46: 113-120.
72. Ekman, P. and O'Sullivan, M. 2006. From flawed self-assessment to blatant whoppers: The utility of voluntary and involuntary behavior in detecting deception. Behavioral Sciences and the Law 24: 673-686.
73. Ekman, P., O'Sullivan, M., and Frank, M. 1999. A few can catch a liar. Psychological Science 10: 263-266.
74. Ekman, P., O'Sullivan, M., Friesen, W. V., and Scherer, K. R. 1991. Face, voice and body in detecting deception. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 15: 125-135.
75. Emiroglu, I. and Akhan, M. B. 1997. Preprocessing of fingerprint images. Proceedings of the IEE European conference on security and detection, Hertfordshire, England, pp. 147-151.
76. Eshghi, K. and Kowalski, R. 1989. Abduction compared with negation by failure. In Sixth international conference on logic programming, edited by G. Levi and M. Martelli. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 234-254.
77. Fakher-Eldeen, F., Kuflik, T., Nissan, E., Puni, G., Salfati, R., Shaul, Y., and Spanioli, A. 1993. Interpretation of imputed behaviour in ALIBI (1 to 3) and SKILL. Informatica e Diritto (Florence), Year 19, 2nd Series, 2(1/2): 213-242.
78. Feinbert, S., Blascovich, J. J., Cacioppo, J. T., Davidson, R. J., Ekman, P., Faigman, D. L., Grambisch, P. L., Imrey, P. B., Keeler, E. B., Laskey, K. B., Murphy, K. R., Raichle, R. E., Shiffrin, R. M., and Swets, J. A. Oct. 2002. The polygraph and lie detection. Washington, D.C.: National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences.
79. Fenton, N. E. and Neil, M. 2000. The jury observation fallacy and the use of Bayesian networks to present probabilistic legal arguments. Mathematics Today: Bulletin of the Institute of Mathematics and its Application (IMA) 36(6): 180-187. Also available at http://www.agena.co.uk/resources.html.
80. Fitzgerald, P. J. 1961. Voluntary and involuntary acts. In Oxford essays in Jurisprudence, edited by A. G. Guest. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Corrected edition, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968.
81. Fox, R. and Josephson, J. R. 1994. Software: PEIRCE-IGTT. In Abductive inference: Computation, philosophy, technology, edited by J. R. Josephson and S. G. Josephson. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, pp. 215-223.
82. Frank, M. G. and Ekman, P. 1997. The ability to detect deceit generalizes across different types of high-stake lies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 72: 1429-1439.
83. Frank, M. G. and Ekman, P. 2003. Nonverbal detection of deception in forensic contexts: Handbook of forensic psychology. New York: Academic Press.
84. Friedman, R. D. 1997. Answering the Bayesioskeptical challenge. In The international journal of evidence and proof, edited by R. Allen and M. Redmayne. Bayesianism and juridical proof, special issue, 1: 253-360. London: Blackstone, pp. 276-291 (with a consolidated bibliography: pp. 354-360).
85. Fung, T. H. and Kowalski, R. 1997. The IFF proof procedure for abductive logic programming. Journal of Logic Programming, 33(2): 151-165.
86. Gudjonsson, G. H. 1992. The psychology of interrogations, confessions and testimony. Chichester, England and New York: Wiley.
87. Gudjonsson, G. H. and Clark, N. K. 1986. Suggestibility in police interrogation: A social psychological model. Social Behavior 1: 83-104.
88. Guest, A. G. 1961. Logic in the law. In Oxford essays in jurisprudence, edited by A. G. Guest. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Corrected edn., Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968, pp. 176-197.
89. Hart, H. L. A. 1961. Negligence, mens rea and criminal responsibility. In Oxford essays in jurisprudence, edited by A. G. Guest. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Corrected edn., Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968.
90. Hickey, L. 1993. Presupposition under cross-examination. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 6: 89-109.
91. Imwinkelried, E. J. 1990. The use of evidence of an accused's uncharged misconduct to prove mens rea: The doctrines that threaten to engulf the character evidence prohibition. Military Law Review [Washington, D.C.: Headquarters, Dept. of the Army, Supt. of Docs.] 130(Fall 1990): 41-76.
92. Ineichen, M. and Neukom, R. 1995. Daktyloskopieren von mummifizierten Leichen [in German; Dactyloscopy of mummified bodies; with German and English summaries]. Archiv für Kriminologie 196(3/4): 87-92. Our quotation is from the English summary, as reproduced in Forensic Science Abstracts Section 49, 22(2) 1996: p. 57, sec. 4, §395.
93. Jackson, B. S. 1971. Liability for mere intention in early Jewish law. Hebrew Union College Annual 42: 197-225.
94. Jackson, B. S. 1994. Towards a semiotic model of professional practice, with some narrative reflections on the criminal process. International Journal of the Legal Profession 1(1): 55-79. Abingdon, U.K.: Carfax (later part of Taylor & Francis).
95. Jackson, B. S. 1998. On the atemporality of legal time. In Temps et droit. le droit a-t-il pour vocation de durer?, edited by F. Ost and M. van Hoecke. Brussels: Bruylant, pp. 225-246.
96. Janner, G. 1984. Janner on presentation. London: Business Books.
97. Jiang, X., Yau, W., and Ser, W. 2001. Detecting the fingerprint minutiae by adaptively tracing the gray-level ridge. Pattern Recognition 34: 999-1013.
98. Jøsang, A. and Bondi, V. A. 2000. Legal reasoning with subjective logic. Artificial Intelligence and Law 8: 289-315.
99. Judson, G. 1995. Mother guilty in the killings of 5 babies. The New York Times, April 22 (Late Edn., Final): Sec. 1, p. 25, col. 5, Metropolitan Desk, Second Front.
100. Kadane, J. and Schum, D. 1996. A probabilistic analysis of the sacco and vanzetti evidence. New York and Chichester, England: Wiley.
101. Kakas, T., Kowalski, K., and Toni, F. 1992. Abductive logic programming. Journal of Logic and Computation 2(6): 719-770.
102. Kakas, T., Kowalski, R., and Toni, F. 1998. The role of logic programming in abduction. In Handbook of logic in artificial intelligence and programming, Vol. 5., edited by D. Gabbay, C. J. Hogger, and J. A. Robinson. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, pp. 235-324.
103. Khuwaja, G. A. 2006. A multimodal biometric identification system using compressed finger images. Cybernetics and Systems 37(1): 23-46.
104. Knight, B., Nissan, E., and Ma, J. (eds.). 1999. Temporal logic in engineering. Special issue, Artificial intelligence for engineering design, analysis and manufacturing (AIEDAM), 13(2).
105. Krawczak, M. and Schmidtke, J. 1994. DNA fingerprinting. (Medical Perspectives Series.) Oxford: BIOS Scientific.
106. Kuflik, T., Nissan, E., and Puni, G. 1989. Finding excuses with ALIBI: Alternative plans that are deontically more defensible. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Communication, Meaning and Knowledge vs. Information Technology, Lisbon, Sept. 1989.
107. Then again in 1991. Computers and artificial intelligence 10(4): 297-325.
108. Then in a selection from the Lisbon conference: 1992. J. Lopes Alves (ed.), Information technology & society: Theory, uses, impacts. Lisbon: APDC & SPF, pp. 484-510.
109. Lauritzen, S. L. and Mortera, J. 2002. Bounding the number of contributors to mixed DNA stains. Forensic Science International 130: 125-126.
110. Lempert, R. 1977. Modeling Relevance. Michigan Law Review 75: 1021 ff.
111. Levine, F. J. and Tapp, J. L. 1982. Eyewitness identification: Problems and pitfalls. In The criminal justice system: A Social Psychological Analysis, edited by V. J. Konepipekni and E. E. Ebbesen. San Francisco, CA: Freeman, pp. 99-127.
112. Levitt, T. S. and Laskey, K. B. 2002. Computational inference for evidential reasoning in support of judicial proof. In The dynamics of judicial proof: Computation, logic, and common sense, edited by M. MacCrimmon and P. Tillers. (Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing, Vol. 94.) Heidelberg: Physical-Verlag, pp. 345-383.
113. Loftus, E. F. 1979. Revised edn.: 1996. Eyewitness testimony. London: Harvard University Press.
114. Loftus, E. F. 1981. Eyewitness testimony: Psychological research and legal thought. In Crime and justice 3, edited by N. Morris and M. Tonry. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
115. Loftus, E. F. and Greene, E. 1980. Warning: Even memory for faces may be contagious. Law and Human Behavior 4: 323-334.
116. Loftus, E. F. and Ketcham, K. 1991. Witness for the defense: The accused, the eyewitness and the expert who puts memory on trial. New York: St. Martin's Press.
117. Loftus, E. F. and Zanni, G. 1975. Eyewitness testimony: The influence of the wording of a question. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society 5: 86-88.
118. MacCrimmon, M. 1989. Facts, stories and the hearsay rule. In Pre-proceedings of the Third International Conference on "Logica, Informatica, Diritto: Legal Expert Systems," edited by A.A. Martino. (2 vols. +Appendix). Florence: Istituto per la Documentazione Giuridica, Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Vol. 1, pp. 461-475.
119. MacCrimmon, M. and Tillers, P. (eds.). 2002. The dynamics of judicial proof: Computation, logic, and common sense. (Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing, Vol. 94). Heidelberg: Physical-Verlag.
120. Martino, A. A. and Nissan, E. (eds.). 1998. Formal models of legal time. Special issue, Information and Communications Technology Law 7(3).
121. Martino, A. A. and Nissan, E. (eds.). 2001. Formal approaches to legal evidence, special issue, Artificial Intelligence and Law 9(2/3): 85-224.
122. Meester, R. W. J. and Sjerps, M. 2004. Why the effect of prior odds should accompany the likelihood ratio when reporting DNA evidence (with discussion between A. P. Dawid, D. J. Balding, J. S. Buckleton and C. M. Triggs). Law, Probability and Risk 3: 51-86.
123. Memon, A., Vrij, A., and Bull, R. 1998. Psychology and law: Truthfulness, accuracy and credibility. London: McGraw-Hill.
124. Mortera, J. and Dawid, A. P. 2006. Probability and evidence. Research Report 264, March. Department of Statistical Science, University College London.
125. Mortera, J., Dawid, A. P., and Lauritzen, S. L. 2003. Probabilistic expert systems for DNA mixture profiling. Theoretical Population Biology 63: 191-205.
126. National Research Council. 1996. The evaluation of forensic DNA evidence. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
127. Nicolson, D. 1994. Truth, reason and justice: Epistemology and politics in evidence discourse. The Modern Law Review 57(5): 726-744.
128. Nielsen, L. and Nespor, S. 1993. Genetic test, screening, and use of genetic data by public authorities. In Criminal justice, social security, and alien and foreigners acts. Copenhagen: Danish Centre for Human Rights.
129. Nijboer, J. F. 2000. Challenges for the law of evidence. In New trends in criminal investigation and evidence, vol. 2: Proceedings of the Second World Conference on New Trends in Criminal Investigation and Evidence, edited by C.M. Breur, M.M. Kommer, J.F. Nijboer, and J.M. Reijntjes. Amsterdam, 10-15 December 1999. Antwerpen, Belgium: Intersentia, pp. 1-9.
130. Nissan, E. 1998a. Advances in deontic logic (review). Computers and Artificial Intelligence 17(4): 392-400.
131. Nissan, E. 1998b. Review of: A. G. B. ter Meulen, Representing time in natural language: The dynamic interpretation of tense and aspect (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1997). Computers and Artificial Intelligence 17(1): 98-100.
132. Nissan, E. 2000. Artificial intelligence and criminal evidence: A few topics. In New trends in criminal investigation and evidence, Vol. 2: Proceedings of the Second World Conference on New Trends in Criminal Investigation and Evidence, edited by C. M. Breur, M. M. Kommer, J. F. Nijboer, and J. M. Reijntjes. Amsterdam, 10-15 December 1999. Antwerpen, Belgium: Intersentia, pp. 495-521.
133. Nissan, E. 2001a. The Bayesianism debate in legal scholarship. [Review article on Allen and Redmayne (1997).] Artificial Intelligence and Law 9(2/3): 199-214.
134. Nissan, E. 2001b. Can you measure circumstantial evidence? The background of probative formalisms for law. [A review essay on I. Rosoni, Quae singula non prosunt collecta iuvant: La teoria della prova indiziaria nell'età medievale e moderna. Milan, Italy: Giuffrè, 1995.]. Information and Communications Technology Law 10(2): 231-245.
135. Nissan, E. 2001c. The Jama legal narrative. Part II: A foray into concepts of improbability. Information & Communications Technology Law 10(1): 39-52.
136. Nissan, E. 2004. Legal evidence scholarship meets artificial intelligence. [Reviewing MacCrimmon and Tillers 2002.] Applied Artificial Intelligence 18(3/4): 367-389.
137. Nissan, E. 2008. Legal evidence, police investigation, case argumentation, and computer tools. Submitted to London: SAGE.
138. Nissan, E. and Dragoni, A. F. 2000. Exoneration, and reasoning about it: A quick overview of three perspectives. Session on Intelligent decision support for legal practice (IDS 2000), in Proceedings of the International ICSC Congress "Intelligent Systems & Applications" (ISA '2000), Wollongong, Australia, December 2000, Vol. 1, pp. 94-100.
139. Nissan, E. and Martino, A. A. (eds.). 2001. Software, formal models, and artificial intelligence for legal evidence, special issue of Computing and Informatics 20(6): 509-656.
140. Nissan, E. and Martino, A. A. (eds.). 2003. Building blocks for an artificial intelligence framework in the field of legal evidence, special issue (two parts), Cybernetics and Systems 34(4/5): 233-411, 34(6/7): 413-583.
141. Nissan, E. and Martino, A. A. (eds.). 2004a. The construction of judicial proof: A challenge for artificial intelligence modelling, special issue, Applied Artificial Intelligence 18(3/4): 183-393.
142. Nissan, E. and Martino, A. A. 2004b. Artificial intelligence and formalisms for legal evidence: An introduction. Applied Artificial Intelligence 18(3/4): 185-229.
143. Nissan, E. and Rousseau, D. 1997. Towards AI formalisms for legal evidence. In Foundations of intelligent systems: Proceedings of the 10th International symposium, ISMIS'97, edited by Z.W. Ras and A. Skowron. Berlin: Springer Verlag, pp. 328-337.
144. NYT. 1995. Woman guilty of murdering husband no. 9. The New York Times, March 19 (Late Edn., Final): Sec. 1, p. 31, col. 1, National Desk.
145. Osborne, C. 1997. Criminal litigation. 5th edition. London: Blackstone.
146. O'Sullivan, M., Ekman, P., and Friesen, W. V. 1988. The effect of comparisons on detecting deceit. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 12: 203-215.
147. Pattenden, R. 1993. Conceptual versus pragmatic approaches to hearsay. Modern Law Review 56(2): 138-156. Oxford: Blackwell.
148. Pennington, N. and Hastie, R. 1993. The story model for juror decision making. In Inside the Juror, edited by R. Hastie. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 192-221.
149. Penrod, S., Loftus, E., and Winkler, J. 1982. The reliability of witness testimony: A psychological perspective. In The criminal justice system, edited by N.L. Kerr and R.M. Bray. New York: Academic Press, pp. 119-168.
150. Perloff, M. 2003. Taking agents seriously. Cybernetics and Systems 34(4/5): 253-281.
151. Poole, P. 2002. Logical argumentation, abduction and Bayesian decision theory: A Bayesian approach to logical arguments and its application to legal evidential reasoning. In The dynamics of judicial proof: Computation, logic, and common sense, edited by M. MacCrimmon and P. Tillers. (Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing, Vol. 94). Heidelberg: Physical-Verlag, pp. 385-396.
152. Poulin, D., Mackaay[sic], E., Bratley, P., and Frémont, J. 1989. Time server: A legal time specialist. In A. A. Martino (ed.), Pre-proceedings of the Third International Conference on "Logica, Informatica, Diritto: Legal Expert Systems", Florence, 1989 (2 vols.+Appendix). Florence: Instituto per la Documentazione Giuridica, Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, 1989, Vol. 2, pp. 733-760.
153. Prakken, H. and Renooij, S. 2001. Reconstructing causal reasoning about evidence: A case study. In Legal knowledge and information systems. Jurix 2001: The 14th Annual Conference, edited by B. Verheij, A.R. Lodder, R.P. Loui, and A.J. Muntjwerff. Amsterdam: IOS Press, pp. 131-137.
154. Quinlan, J. R. 1986. Induction of decision trees. Machine Learning 1: 81-106.
155. Redmayne, M. 2002. Appeals to reason. The Modern Law Review 65(1): 19-35. Oxford: Blackwell.
156. Roberts, L. 1991. Fight erupts over DNA fingerprinting. Science 254: 1721-1723.
157. Robertson, B. and Vignaux, G. A. [T.]. 1995. Interpreting evidence: Evaluating forensic science in the courtroom. Chichester, England: Wiley.
158. Schank, R. 2006. The computer's subconscious. In Marco Somalvico memorial issue, edited by E. Nissan, G. Gini, and M. Colombetti, in Applied Artificial Intelligence, in press.
159. Schum, D. A. 1986. Probability and the processes of discovery, proof, and choice. Boston University Law Review 66: 825-876.
160. Schum, D. A. 1994. Evidential foundations of probabilistic reasoning. New York: Wiley.
161. Schum, D. A. and Martin, A. W. 1982. Formal and empirical research on cascaded inference in jurisprudence. Law and Society Review 17: 105-151.
162. Segal, U. and Stein, A. 2006. Ambiguity aversion and the criminal process. Notre Dame Law Review 81: 1495-1551.
163. Shafer, G. 1976. A mathematical theory of evidence. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
164. Shimony, S. E. and Nissan, E. 2001. Kappa calculus and evidential strength: Å note on Aqvist's logical theory of legal evidence. Artificial Intelligence and Law 9(2/3): 153-163.
165. Shyu, C. H., Fu, C.-M., Cheng, T., and Lee, C. H. 1989. A heuristic evidential reasoning model. In Pre-proceedings of the Third International Conference On "Logica, Informatica, Diritto: Legal Expert Systems," edited by A.A. Martino. Florence, 1989 (2 vols.+ Appendix). Florence: Istituto per la Documentazione Giuridica, Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Vol. 1, pp. 661-670.
166. Smith, A. S. 2006. Geomaterials from civil to criminal law; one small step for the geoscientist (abstract). In Abstract book of geoscientists at crime scenes: First, inaugural meeting of the Geological Society of London, Forensic Geoscience Group, edited by A. Ruffell. London, 20 December 2006, p. 12. Available online at http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/pdfs/FGtalks&abs_pro. pdf. London: The Geological Society.
167. Spohn, W. 1988. A dynamic theory of epistemic states. In Causation in decision, belief change, and statistics, edited by W.L. Harper and B. Skyrms. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Reidel (Kluwer), pp. 105-134.
168. Stein, A. 2005. Foundations of evidence law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
169. Stockmarr, A. 1999. Likelihood ratios for evaluating DNA evidence when the suspect is found through a database search. Biometrics 55: 671-677.
170. Stoney, D. A. 1997. Fingerprint identification: Scientific status. In Modern scientific evidence: The law and science of expert testimony, Vol. 2, edited by D.L. Faigman, D.H. Kaye, M.J. Saks, and J. Sanders. West Publishing, St. Paul, Minnesota: West Publishing.
171. Taroni, F., Aitken, C., Garbolino, P., and Biedermann, A. 2006. Bayesian networks and probabilistic inference in forensic science. (Statistics in Practice series.) Chichester, England: Wiley.
172. Templeman, Lord and Reay, R. 1999. Evidence. 2nd ed. London: Old Bailey Press. (The 1st edn. (1997) was by Lord Templeman and C. Bell.)
173. Thagard, P. 1989. Explanatory coherence. Behavioural and Brain Sciences 12(3): 435-467.
174. Thagard, P. 2004. Causal inference in legal decision making: Explanatory coherence vs. Bayesian networks. Applied Artificial Intelligence 18(3/4): 231-249.
175. Tillers, P. 1983. Modern theories of relevancy. Boston: Little, Brown and Co.
176. Tillers, P. and Green, E. (eds.). 1988. Probability and inference in the law of evidence: The uses and limits of Bayesianism (Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 109). Boston and Dordrecht (Netherlands): Kluwer.
177. Tinsley, Y. 2001. Even better than the real thing? The case for reform of identification procedures. The International Journal of Evidence & Proof 5(2): 99-110. Sark, Channel Islands: Vathek Publishing (vatheksubs@cassis.co.uk).
178. Toni, F. and Kowalski, R. 1995. Reduction of abductive logic programs to normal logic programs. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Logic Programming edited by L. Sterig. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 367-381.
179. Tonini, P. 1997. La Prova Penale. Padua, Italy: CEDAM.
180. Tsiamyrtzis, P., Dowdall, J., Shastri, D., Pavlidis, I. T., Frank, M. G., and Ekman, P. 2005. Imaging facial physiology for the detection of deceit.
181. Twining, W. L. 1985. Theories of evidence: Bentham and Wigmore. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
182. Twining, W. L. 1989. Rationality and scepticism in judicial proof: Some signposts. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 2(4): 69-83.
183. Twining, W. L. 1990. Rethinking evidence: Exploratory essays. Oxford: Blackwell; also, Evanston, Illinois: Northeastern University Press, 1994.
184. Twining, W. and Miers, D. 1976. How to do things with rules: A primer of interpretation. (Law in Context series.) London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
185. Vicard, P. and Dawid, A. P. 2006. Remarks on: 'Paternity analysis in special fatherless cases without direct testing of alleged father' [Forensic Science International 146S (2004) S159-S161]. Forensic Science International, 163(1-2): 158-160.
186. Vrij, A. 1998a. Physiological parameters and credibility: The polygraph. Ch. 4 in Memon et al. pp. 77-101.
187. Vrij, A. 1998b. Interviewing suspects. Ch. 6 in Memon et al. pp. 124-146.
188. Vrij, A. 2000. Detecting lies and deceit: The psychology of lying and implications for professional practice. (Wiley Series on the Psychology of Crime, Policing and Law.) Chichester: Wiley.
189. Walton, D. N. 2004. Abductive reasoning. Tuscaloosa, Alabama: University of Alabama Press.
190. White, W. S. 1989. Police trickery in inducing confessions. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 127: 581-629.
191. Wilkinson, C. 2004. Forensic facial reconstruction. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
192. Williams, D. R. 1996. Goodbye, my little ones (book review). New York Law Journal, April 30, Section "The Lawyer's Bookshelf," p. 2.
193. Yovel, J. 2003. Two conceptions of relevance. Cybernetics and systems 34(4/5): 283-315.
194. Zander, M. 1979. The investigation of crime: A study of cases tried at the Old Bailey. Criminal Law Review 1979: 203-219.
195. Zarri, G. P. 1998. Representation of temporal knowledge in events: The formalism, and its potential for legal narratives. In Formal models of legal time, edited by A. A. Martino and E. Nissan, special issue, Information and Communications Technology Law 7(3): 213-241.
196. Zeleznikow, J. 2004. Building intelligent legal decision support systems: Past practice and future challenges. Ch. 7 In Applied intelligent systems: New directions, edited by J.A. Fulcher and L.C. Jain. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, pp. 201-254.
197. Zeleznikow, J., Oatley, G., and Leary, R. 2005. A methodology for constructing decision support systems for crime detection. Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Knowledge-Based & Intelligent Information & Engineering Systems (KES2005), 14-16 September 2005, Melbourne, Australia. (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 3684.) Berlin: Springer-Verlag, pp. 813-822.