An introduction to a debate

Law, Probability and Risk

Volumn 11, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 255-258

  Aitken, Colin ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84871292338     PISSN: 14708396     EISSN: 1470840X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/lpr/mgs014     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. AITKEN, C. G. G. (1999). Sampling - how big a sample. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 44, 750-760.
2. AITKEN, C. G.G. et al. (2011). Expressing evaluative opinions: a position statement. Science and Justice, 51, 1-2.
3. BERGER, C., BUCKLETON, J., CHAMPOD, C., EVETT, I. W. & JACKSON, G. (2011a). Evidence evaluation: a response to the Court of Appeal judgement in R v T. Science and Justice, 51, 43.
4. BERGER, C., BUCKLETON, J.,CHAMPOD, C., EVETT, I.W. JACKSON, G. (2011). Response to Faigman et al. Science and Justice, 51, 215.
5. BIEDERMANN, A., TARONI, F. CHAMPOD, C. (2012). How to assign a likelihood ratio in a footwear mark case: an analysis and discussion in the light of R v T. Law, Probability and Risk, 11 (this issue). BODZIAK,W. (2001). Traditional Reporting of Footwear Examination Results by the FBI and other Laboratories in the United States, presented as part of a panel discussion at the European Meeting for Shoeprint/Tool Mark Examiners. 15th-18th May, 2001.
6. FAIGMAN, D., JAMIESON, A., NOZIGLIA, C., ROBERTSON, J. WHEATE, R. (2011). Response to Aitken et al. Science and Justice, 51, 213.
7. MORRISON, G. (2011). The likelihood-ratio framework and forensic evidence in court: a response to R v T. International Journal of Evidence and Proof, 16, 1-29.
8. REDMAYNE, M., ROBERTS, P., AITKEN, C. G. G. & JACKSON, G. (2011). Forensic science evidence in question. Criminal Law Review, 347-356.
9. ROBERTSON, B., VIGNAUX,G. A. BERGER, C. (2011). Extending the confusion about Bayes. Modern Law Review, 74, 430.
10. SJERPS, M. & BERGER, C. (2012). How clear is transparent: Reporting expert reasoning in legal cases. Law, Probability and Risk (this issue).
11. TARONI, F., AITKEN, C. G. G., GARBOLINO, P. & BIEDERMANN, A. (2006). Bayesian Networks and Probabilistic Inference in Forensic Science. John Wiley and Sons Ltd, Chichester, UK.
12. THOMPSON,W. C. (2012). How bad cases make bad law: reactions to R v T. Law, Probability and Risk (this issue).
13. THOMPSON, W. C. & SCHUMANN, E. L. (1987). Interpretation of statistical evidence in criminal trials. The prosecutor's fallacy and the defence attorney's fallacy. Law and Human Behaviour, 11, 167-187.
14. THOMPSON,W.C.,TARONI, F. AITKEN, C.G.G. (2003). How the probability of a false positive affects the value of the DNA evidence. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 48, 47-54.