The interpretation of shoeprint comparison class correspondences

Science and Justice

Volumn 52, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 243-248

  Hancock, Sheida ^a,b   Morgan Smith, Rian ^a   Buckleton, John ^a  

^a MT ALBERT RESEARCH CENTRE   (New Zealand)

^b UNIVERSITY OF AUCKLAND   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

Class correspondence; Forensic; Interpretation; Shoeprint

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; FORENSIC SCIENCE; HEALTH SURVEY; NEW ZEALAND; SHOE; SHOE INDUSTRY; SHOEPRINT;

EQUIPMENT DESIGN; FORENSIC SCIENCES; HUMANS; MODELS, STATISTICAL; PROBABILITY; SHOES;

EID: 84867643033     PISSN: 13550306     EISSN: 18764452     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.scijus.2012.06.002     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Stoney D.A. What made us ever think we could individualize using statistics. Journal of the Forensic Science Society 1991, 31(2):197-199.
2. Saks M.J., Koehler J.J. The individualisation fallacy in forensic science evidence. Vanderbilt Law Review 2008, 61(1):199-219.
3. Cole S.A. Forensics without uniqueness, conclusions without individualisation: the new epistemology of forensic identification. Law, Probability and Risk 2009, 8:233-255.
4. Cole S.A. Where the rubber meets the road: thinking about expert evidence as expert testimony. Villanova Law Review 2008, 52:101-115.
5. Bodziak W.J. Footwear impression evidence-detection, recovery and examination. Practical Aspects of Criminal and Forensic Investigations 2000, CRC Press, Boca Raton. 2nd edition. V.J. Geberth (Ed.).
6. Volckeryck G. Fifth meeting of the committee on the harmonisation of conclusion scales in footwear casework. The Information Bulletin for Shoeprint/Toolmark Examiners 2002, 8(1):17-32.
7. Conclusion scale for interpreting findings in proficiencty tests and collaborative exercises within the WG marks. The Information Bulletin for Shoeprint/Toolmark Examiners 2005, 11(2):15-18. Conclusion Scale Committee.
8. R v T. Neutral Citation Number: [2010] EWCA Crim 2439 2010, Court of Appeal.
9. Berger C.E.H., et al. Evidence evaluation: a response to the court of appeal judgment in R v T. Science & Justice 2011, 51(2):43-49.
10. Facey O.E., Davis R.J. Re: Expressing evaluative opinions; a position statement. Science & Justice 2011, 51:212.
11. Expressing evaluative opinions: a position statement. Science & Justice 2011, 51(1):1-2.
12. Katterwe H. True of false?. The Information Bulletin for Shoeprint/Toolmark Examiners 2003, 9(2):18-25.
13. Taroni F., Buckleton J. Comments of Horst Katterwe to the article of F. Taroni and J. Buckleton. The Information Bulletin for Shoeprint/Toolmark Examiners 2002, 8(3):17-21.
14. Champod C., et al. Comments on the scale of conclusions proposed by the ad hoc committee of the ENFSI Marks Working Group. The Information Bulletin for Shoeprint/Toolmark Examiners 2000, 6(3):11-18.
15. Champod C., Jackson G. Comments on the current debate on the Bayesian approach in marks examinations. The Information Bulletin for Shoeprint/Toolmark Examiners 2002, 8(3):22-25.
16. FSS Reproaches of Forensic Science Service. The Information Bulletin for Shoeprint/Toolmark Examiners 2002, 8(1):23-24.
17. Champod C., Taroni F., Margot P. Statistics: a future in tool mark comparison?. AFTE Journal 1996, 28(4):222-229.
18. Katterwe H. Comments/objections to reproaches of Forensic Science Service and University of Luasanne. The Information Bulletin for Shoeprint/Toolmark Examiners 2002, 8(1):25-30.
19. Keereweer I. Comments and objections to reproaches. The Information Bulletin for Shoeprint/Toolmark Examiners 2002, 8(1):31-32.
20. Biedermann A., Taroni F., Garbolino P. Equal prior probabilities: can one do any better?. Forensic Science International 2007, 172(2-3):85-93.
21. Evett I.W., Weir B.S. Interpreting DNA Evidence-Statistical Genetics for Forensic Scientists 1998, Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sunderland.
22. Evett I.W., Lambert J.A., Buckleton J.S. A Bayesian approach to interpreting footwear marks in forensic casework. Science & Justice 1998, 38(4):241-247.
23. Champod C., Evett I.W., Jackson G. Establishing the most appropriate databases for addressing source level propositions. Science & Justice 2004, 44(3):153-164.
24. Statistics New Zealand Convicted offenders by ASOC 2009.
25. Clopper C.J., Pearson E.S. The use of confidence or fiducial intervals illustrated in the case of the binomial. Biometrika 1934, 26:404-413.
26. Buckleton J.S., Krawczak M., Weir B.S. The interpretation of lineage markers in forensic DNA testing. Forensic Science International: Genetics 2011, 5(2):78-83.
27. Tippett C.F., et al. Paint flakes from sources other than vehicles. Journal of the Forensic Science Society 1965, 8(2):61-65.
28. Gill P., et al. Interpretation of complex DNA profiles using empirical models and a method to measure their robustness. Forensic Science International: Genetics 2008, 2(2):91-103.
29. Gill P., Curran J., Neumann C. Interpretation of complex DNA profiles using Tippett plots. Forensic Science International: Genetics Supplement Series 2008, 1(1):646-648.
30. Morrison G.S. Measuring the validity and reliability of forensic likelihood-ratio systems. Science & Justice 2011, 51:91-98.
31. Hannigan T.J., et al. Survey of 1276 shoeprint impressions and development of an automatic shoeprint pattern matching facility. Science & Justice 2006, 46(2):79-89.