-
1
-
-
69449098011
-
Standards for the formulation of evaluative forensic science expert opinion
-
Association of Forensic Science Providers
-
Association of Forensic Science Providers. (2009). Standards for the formulation of evaluative forensic science expert opinion. Science & Justice, 161, 161-184.
-
(2009)
Science & Justice
, vol.161
, pp. 161-184
-
-
-
2
-
-
79956266797
-
Evidence evaluation: A response to the Appeal Court judgment R v T
-
BERGER, C. E. H., BUCKLETON, J. S., CHAMPOD, C., EVETT, I. W. & JACKSON, G. (2011). Evidence evaluation: A response to the Appeal Court judgment R v T. Science & Justice, 51, 43-49.
-
(2011)
Science & Justice
, vol.51
, pp. 43-49
-
-
Berger, C.E.H.1
Buckleton, J.S.2
Champod, C.3
Evett, I.W.4
Jackson, G.5
-
3
-
-
84871268692
-
How to assign a likelihood ratio in a footwear mark case: An analysis and discussion in the light of R v T
-
This issue.
-
BIEDERMAN, F. & TARONI (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, this issue.
-
(2012)
Law Probability and Risk
-
-
Biederman, F.1
Taroni2
-
4
-
-
84871336947
-
-
Traditional conclusions in footwear examinations versus the use of the Bayesian approach and likelihood ratio: A review of a recent UK appellate court decision
-
BODZIAK, W. J. (2012). Traditional conclusions in footwear examinations versus the use of the Bayesian approach and likelihood ratio: A review of a recent UK appellate court decision. Law Probability and Risk, this issue.
-
(2012)
Law Probability and Risk, this issue.
-
-
Bodziak, W.J.1
-
5
-
-
33745967855
-
A framework for interpreting evidence
-
Forensic DNA Evidence Interpretation (J. Buckleton, C. M. Triggs and S. J. Walsh eds.). 27-63. CRC Press.
-
BUCKLETON, J. (2005). A framework for interpreting evidence. In: Forensic DNA Evidence Interpretation (J. Buckleton, C. M. Triggs and S. J. Walsh eds.). 27-63. CRC Press.
-
(2005)
-
-
Buckleton, J.1
-
6
-
-
3142735354
-
Establishing the most appropriate databases for addressing source level propositions
-
CHAMPOD, C., EVETT, I. & JACKSON, G. (2004). Establishing the most appropriate databases for addressing source level propositions. Science & Justice, 44, 153-163.
-
(2004)
Science & Justice
, vol.44
, pp. 153-163
-
-
Champod, C.1
Evett, I.2
Jackson, G.3
-
7
-
-
77957224507
-
Forensics without uniqueness, conclusions without individualization: The new epistemology of forensic identification
-
COLE, S. A. (2009). Forensics without uniqueness, conclusions without individualization: The new epistemology of forensic identification. Law, Probability and Risk, 8, 233-255
-
(2009)
Law Probability and Risk
, vol.8
, pp. 233-25
-
-
Cole, S.A.1
-
8
-
-
0031847738
-
A model for case assessment, interpretation
-
COOK, R., EVETT, I.W., JACKSON, G., JONES, P. J. & LAMBERT, J. A. (1998). A model for case assessment, interpretation. Science & Justice, 38, 151-156.
-
(1998)
Science & Justice
, vol.38
, pp. 151-156
-
-
Cook, R.1
Evett, I.W.2
Jackson, G.3
Jones, P.J.4
Lambert, J.A.5
-
10
-
-
47349111028
-
Meta-analytically quantifying the reliability and biasability of forensic experts
-
DROR, I. E. & ROSENTHAL, R. (2008). Meta-analytically quantifying the reliability and biasability of forensic experts. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 53 (4), 900-903.
-
(2008)
Journal of Forensic Sciences
, vol.53
, Issue.4
, pp. 900-903
-
-
Dror, I.E.1
Rosenthal, R.2
-
11
-
-
0031821209
-
Towards a uniform framework for reporting opinions in forensic science casework
-
EVETT, I.W. (1998). Towards a uniform framework for reporting opinions in forensic science casework. Science & Justice, 38, 198-202.
-
(1998)
Science & Justice
, vol.38
, pp. 198-202
-
-
Evett, I.W.1
-
12
-
-
84871293474
-
Interpreting DNA Evidence: Statistical Genetics for Forensic Scientists
-
EVETT, I.W. & WEIR, B. S. (1998). Interpreting DNA Evidence: StatisticalGenetics for Forensic Scientists. Sinaur and Associates.
-
(1998)
Sinaur & Associates.
-
-
Evett, I.W.1
Weir, B.S.2
-
13
-
-
33745938349
-
DNA commission of the International Society of Forensic Genetics: Recommendations on the interpretation of mixtures
-
GILL, P.,BRENNER, C.H.,BUCKLETON, J. S., CARRACEDO, A.,KRAWCZAK,M.,MAYR,W. R.,MORLING, N., PRINZ, M., SCHNEIDER, P. M. & WEIR, B. S. (2006). DNA commission of the International Society of Forensic Genetics: Recommendations on the interpretation of mixtures. Forensic Science International, 160, 90-101.
-
(2006)
Forensic Science International
, vol.160
, pp. 90-101
-
-
Gill, P.1
Brenner, C.H.2
Buckleton, J.S.3
Carracedo, A.4
Krawczak, M.5
Mayr, W.R.6
Morling, N.7
Prinz, M.8
Schneider, P.M.9
Weir, B.S.10
-
14
-
-
23044529157
-
The psychology of numbers in the courtroom: How to make DNA-match statistics seem impressive or insufficient
-
KOEHLER, J. J. (2001). The psychology of numbers in the courtroom: How to make DNA-match statistics seem impressive or insufficient. Southern California Law Review, 74, 1275-1325.
-
(2001)
Southern California Law Review
, vol.74
, pp. 1275-1325
-
-
Koehler, J.J.1
-
15
-
-
47349123661
-
Sequential unmasking: A means of minimizing observer effects in forensic DNA interpretation
-
KRANE, D. E., FORD, S., GILDER, J., INMAN, K., JAMIESON, A., KOPPL, R., KORNFIELD, I., RISINGER, D. M., RUDIN, N., TAYLOR, M. S. & THOMPSON, W. C. (2008). Sequential unmasking: A means of minimizing observer effects in forensic DNA interpretation. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 53 (4), 1006-1007.
-
(2008)
Journal of Forensic Sciences
, vol.53
, Issue.4
, pp. 1006-1007
-
-
Krane, D.E.1
Ford, S.2
Gilder, J.3
Inman, K.4
Jamieson, A.5
Koppl, R.6
Kornfield, I.7
Risinger, D.M.8
Rudin, N.9
Taylor, M.S.10
Thompson, W.C.11
-
16
-
-
0012464729
-
Modeling relevance
-
LEMPERT, R. (1977). Modeling relevance. Michigan Law Review, 75, 1021-1089.
-
(1977)
Michigan Law Review
, vol.75
, pp. 1021-1089
-
-
Lempert, R.1
-
17
-
-
84871338017
-
Expressing evaluative forensic science opinions in a court of law
-
This issue.
-
LIGERTWOOD, A. & EDMOND, G. (2012). Expressing evaluative forensic science opinions in a court of law. Law Probability and Risk, this issue.
-
(2012)
Law Probability and Risk
-
-
Ligertwood, A.1
Edmond, G.2
-
18
-
-
84871269854
-
The likelihood-ratio framework and forensic evidence in court: A response to R v T
-
MORRISON, G. S. (2011). The likelihood-ratio framework and forensic evidence in court: A response to R v T. International Journal of Evidence and Proof, 15, 1-29.
-
(2011)
International Journal of Evidence and Proof
, vol.15
, pp. 1-29
-
-
Morrison, G.S.1
-
19
-
-
78649528111
-
Forensic voice comparison. Ch. 99
-
(I. Freckelton & H. Selby eds.). Thomson Reuters.
-
MORRISON, G. S. (2010). Forensic voice comparison. Ch. 99. In: Expert Evidence (I. Freckelton & H. Selby eds.). 1-106. Thomson Reuters.
-
(2010)
Expert Evidence
, pp. 1-106
-
-
Morrison, G.S.1
-
20
-
-
84871307058
-
Understanding potential errors and fallacies in forensic DNA statistics: An amicus brief in McDaniel v
-
National Research Council of the National Academy of Science (2009). Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward. National Academies Press.
-
MURPHY, E. & THOMPSON, W. C. (2010). Understanding potential errors and fallacies in forensic DNA statistics: An amicus brief in McDaniel v. Brown. Criminal Law Bulletin, 46 (4), 709-757.
-
(2010)
Brown. Criminal Law Bulletin
, vol.46
, Issue.4
, pp. 709-757
-
-
Murphy, E.1
Thompson, W.C.2
-
21
-
-
68649108740
-
-
National Research Council of the National Academy of Science. National Academies Press
-
National Research Council of the National Academy of Science (2009). Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward. National Academies Press.
-
(2009)
Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward
-
-
-
22
-
-
84871296390
-
The likelihood ratio as value of evidence-more than a question of numbers
-
This issue.
-
NORDGAARD, B. & RASMUSSON (2012). The likelihood ratio as value of evidence-more than a question of numbers. Law Probability and Risk, this issue.
-
(2012)
Law Probability and Risk
-
-
Nordgaard, B.1
Rasmusson2
-
24
-
-
41449101021
-
Juridical proof and the best explanation
-
PARDO, M. & ALLEN, R. (2008). Juridical proof and the best explanation. Law and Philosophy, 27, 223-302.
-
(2008)
Law and Philosophy
, vol.27
, pp. 223-302
-
-
Pardo, M.1
Allen, R.2
-
25
-
-
79958838851
-
Forensic science evidence in question
-
REDMAYNE, M., ROBERTS, P., AITKEN, C. & JACKSON, G. (2011). Forensic science evidence in question. Criminal Law Review, 5, 347-356.
-
(2011)
Criminal Law Review
, vol.5
, pp. 347-356
-
-
Redmayne, M.1
Roberts, P.2
Aitken, C.3
Jackson, G.4
-
27
-
-
79958792807
-
-
(Denis) (No 2)
-
R v Adams (Denis) (No 2)(1997) 1 Cr.App.Rep 377.
-
(1997)
Cr.App. Rep
, vol.1
, pp. 377
-
-
Adams, R.V.1
-
30
-
-
84875288413
-
Some reservations about likelihood ratios (and some aspects of forensic 'Bayesianism'
-
In press, doi:10.1093/lpr/MGS011.
-
RISINGER, D. M. Some reservations about likelihood ratios (and some aspects of forensic 'Bayesianism'). Law, Probability and Risk, in press, doi:10.1093/lpr/MGS011.
-
Law, Probability and Risk
-
-
Risinger, D.M.1
-
31
-
-
0036332126
-
The Daubert/Kumho implications of observer effects in forensic science: Hidden problems of expectation and suggestion
-
RISINGER, D. M., SAKS, M. J, THOMPSON, W. C. & ROSENTHAL, R. (2002). The Daubert/Kumho implications of observer effects in forensic science: Hidden problems of expectation and suggestion. California Law Review, 90 (1), 1-56.
-
(2002)
California Law Review
, vol.90
, Issue.1
, pp. 1-56
-
-
Risinger, D.M.1
Saks, M.J.2
Thompson, W.C.3
Rosenthal, R.4
-
32
-
-
0003928558
-
Interpreting Evidence: Evaluating Forensic Science In The Courtroom
-
ROBERTSON, B. & VIGNAUX, G. A. (1995). Interpreting Evidence: Evaluating Forensic Science in the Courtroom. John Wiley & Sons.
-
(1995)
John Wiley & Sons
-
-
Robertson, B.1
Vignaux, G.A.2
-
33
-
-
79959731195
-
Extending the confusion about Bayes
-
Robertson, B., Vignaux, G. A.& Berger, C. E. H. (2011). Extending the confusion about Bayes. Modern Law Review, 74, 444-455.
-
(2011)
Modern Law Review
, vol.74
, pp. 444-455
-
-
Robertson, B.1
Vignaux, G.A.2
Berger, C.E.H.3
-
34
-
-
84871305254
-
How clear is transparent? Reporting expert reasoning in legal cases.
-
This issue.
-
SJERPS, M. & BERGER, C. (2012). How clear is transparent? Reporting expert reasoning in legal cases. Law Probability and Risk, this issue.
-
(2012)
Law Probability and Risk
-
-
Sjerps, M.1
Berger, C.2
-
35
-
-
79957507152
-
What role should investigative facts play in the evaluation of scientific evidence?
-
THOMPSON, W. C. (2011). What role should investigative facts play in the evaluation of scientific evidence? Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 43 (2-3), 123-134.
-
(2011)
Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences
, vol.43
, Issue.2-3
, pp. 123-134
-
-
Thompson, W.C.1
-
36
-
-
77955052318
-
Painting the target around the matching profile: The Texas sharpshooter fallacy in forensic DNA interpretation
-
THOMPSON, W. C. (2009). Painting the target around the matching profile: The Texas sharpshooter fallacy in forensic DNA interpretation. Law, Probability and Risk, 8, 257-276.
-
(2009)
Law, Probability and Risk
, vol.8
, pp. 257-276
-
-
Thompson, W.C.1
-
37
-
-
0012397740
-
Accepting lower standards: The National Research Council's second report on forensic DNA evidence
-
THOMPSON, W. C. (1997). Accepting lower standards: The National Research Council's second report on forensic DNA evidence. Jurimetrics Journal, 37 (4), 405-424.
-
(1997)
Jurimetrics Journal
, vol.37
, Issue.4
, pp. 405-424
-
-
Thompson, W.C.1
-
38
-
-
34548594459
-
Psychological aspects of forensic identification evidence
-
(M. Costanzo, D. Krauss & K. Pezdek eds.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
-
THOMPSON, W. C. & COLE, S. A. (2007). Psychological aspects of forensic identification evidence. In: Expert Psychological Testimony for the Courts (M. Costanzo, D. Krauss & K. Pezdek eds.). 31-68. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
-
(2007)
Expert Psychological Testimony for the Courts
, pp. 31-68
-
-
Thompson, W.C.1
Cole, S.A.2
-
39
-
-
79951838653
-
Commentary on: Thornton-a rejection of 'working blind' as a cure for contextual bias
-
THOMPSON, W. C., FORD, S., GILDER, J. R., INMAN, K., JAMIESON, A., KOPPL, R., KORNFIELD, I. L., KRANE, D., MNOOKIN, J. L., RISINGER, D. M., RUDIN, N., SAKS, M. J. & ZABELL, S. (2011). Commentary on: Thornton-a rejection of 'working blind' as a cure for contextual bias. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 56 (2), 562-563.
-
(2011)
Journal of Forensic Sciences
, vol.56
, Issue.2
, pp. 562-563
-
-
Thompson, W.C.1
Ford, S.2
Gilder, J.R.3
Inman, K.4
Jamieson, A.5
Koppl, R.6
Kornfield, I.L.7
Krane, D.8
Mnookin, J.L.9
Risinger, D.M.10
Rudin, N.11
Saks, M.J.12
Zabell, S.13
-
40
-
-
0000312731
-
Interpretation of statistical evidence in criminal trials: The prosecutor's fallacy and the defense attorney's fallacy
-
THOMPSON, W. C. & SCHUMANN, E. L. (1987). Interpretation of statistical evidence in criminal trials: The prosecutor's fallacy and the defense attorney's fallacy. Law and Human Behavior, 11, 167-187.
-
(1987)
Law and Human Behavior
, vol.11
, pp. 167-187
-
-
Thompson, W.C.1
Schumann, E.L.2
-
41
-
-
20744442705
-
Constructed criteria: Redefining merit to justify discrimination
-
UHLMANN, E. L. & COHEN, G. (2005). Constructed criteria: Redefining merit to justify discrimination. Psychological Science, 16 (6), 474-480.
-
(2005)
Psychological Science
, vol.16
, Issue.6
, pp. 474-480
-
-
Uhlmann, E.L.1
Cohen, G.2
-
42
-
-
84871267896
-
-
United States v. Yee. 134 F.R.D. 161, aff'd. sub nom. U.S. v. Bonds (1993) 12 F.3d 540.
-
United States v. Yee (1991) 134 F.R.D. 161, aff'd. sub nom. U.S. v. Bonds (1993) 12 F.3d 540.
-
(1991)
-
-
|