Interpretation of forensic evidence

Handbook of Risk Theory: Epistemology, Decision Theory, Ethics, and Social Implications of Risk

Volumn , Issue , 2012, Pages 135-158

  Stoel, Reinoud D ^a   Sjerps, Marjan ^a  

^a NETHERLANDS FORENSIC INSTITUTE   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84890284786     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1007/978-94-007-1433-5_6     Document Type: Chapter

References (29)

1. Aitken CGG, Taroni F (2004) Statistics and the evaluation of evidence for forensic scientists, 2nd edn. Wiley, Chichester
2. Bayes T, Price R (1763) An essay towards solving a problem in the doctrine of chance. By the late Rev. Mr. Bayes, communicated by Mr. Price, in a letter to John Canton, M. A. and F. R. S. Philos Trans R Soc Lond 53: 370-418
3. Brown LD, Cai T, DasGupta A (2001) Interval estimation for a binomial proportion (with discussion). Stat Sci 16:101-133
4. Buckleton J, Triggs CM, Walsh SJ (eds) (2005) Forensic DNA evidence interpretation. CRC, Boca Raton
5. Colyvan M, Regan HM (2007) Legal decisions and the reference class problem. Int J Evidence Proof 11:274-285
6. Cook R, Evett IW, Jackson G, Jones PJ, Lambert JA (1998) A hierarchy of propositions: deciding which level to address in casework. Sci Justice 38: 231-239
7. Curran JM (2005) An introduction to Bayesian credible intervals for sampling error in DNA profiles. Law Prob Risk 4:15-126
8. Curran JM, Buckleton JS, Triggs CM, Weir BS (2002) Assessing uncertainty in DNA evidence caused by sampling effects. Sci Justice 42:29-37
9. Dann RS, Koch GG (2005) Review and evaluation of methods for computing confidence intervals for the ratio of two proportions and considerations for noninferiority clinical trials. J Biopharm Stat 15:85-107
10. Dror IE (2009) How can Francis Bacon help forensic science? The four idols of human biases. Jurimetrics 50:93-110
11. Dror IE, Cole S (2010) The vision in ‘blind’ justice: expert perception, judgment and visual cognition in forensic pattern recognition. Psychon Bull Rev 17:161-167
12. Dror IE, Charlton D, Peron A (2006) Contextual information renders experts vulnerable to making erroneous identifications. Forensic Sci Int 156:74-78
13. Evet IW (1998) Toward a uniform framework for reporting opinions in forensic science case work. Sci Justice 38:198-202
14. Finkelstein MO, Levin B (1990) Statistics for lawyers. Springer, New York
15. Gastwirth JL (ed) (2000) Statistical science in the courtroom. Springer, New York
16. Hall LJ, Player E (2008) Will the introduction of an emotional context affect fingerprint analysis and decision-making? Forensic Sci Int 181:36-39
17. Kaye DH (2010) The double helix and the law of evidence. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
18. Koopman PAR (1984) Confidence intervals for the ratio of two binomial proportions. Biometrics 40:513-517
19. Lucy D (2005) Introduction to statistics for forensic scientists. Wiley, Chichester
20. Morrison GS (2010) Forensic voice comparison. In: Freckelton I, Selby H (eds) Expert evidence. Thomson Reuters, Sydney
21. Redmayne M (2001) Expert evidence and criminal justice. Oxford University Press, Oxford
22. Risinger MD, Saks MJ, Thompson WC, Rosenthal R (2002) The Daubert/Kumbo implications of observer effects in forensic science: hidden problems of expectation and suggestion. California Law Review 90:1-56
23. Robertson B, Vignaux GA (1995) Interpreting evidence: evaluating forensic science in the courtroom. Wiley, Chicester
24. Saks MJ, Koehler JJ (2005) The coming paradigm shift in forensic identification science. Science 309:892-895
25. Saks MJ, Risinger MD, Rosenthal R, Thompson WC (2003) Context effects in forensic science: a review and application of the science of science to crime laboratory practice in the United States. Sci Justice 43:77-90
26. Taroni F, Aitken CGG, Garbolino P, Biedermann A (2006) Bayesian networks and probabilistic inference in forensic science. Wiley, Chichester
27. Taroni F, Bozza S, Biedermann A, Garbolino P, Aitken CGG (2010) Data analysis in forensic science: a Bayesian decision perspective. Wiley, Chichester
28. Thompson WC (2009) Painting the target around the matching profile: the Texas sharpshooter fallacy in forensic DNA interpretation. Law Prob Risk 8:257-276
29. Thompson WC, Schuman EL (1987) Interpretation of statistical evidence in criminal trials-the prosecutor’s fallacy and the defense attorney’s fallacy. Law Hum Behav 11:167-187