Some thoughts on the role of probabilistic reasoning in the evaluation of evidence

Criminal and Environmental Soil Forensics

Volumn , Issue , 2009, Pages 33-47

  Aitken, Colin G G ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84919840179     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4020-9204-6_3     Document Type: Chapter

References (20)

1. Aitken CGG and Taroni F (2004) Statistics and the evaluation of evidence for forensic scientists, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.
2. Cook R, Evett IW, Jackson G, Jones PJ and Lambert JA (1998a) A model for case assessment and interpretation. Science and Justice 38:151-156.
3. Cook R, Evett IW, Jackson G, Jones PJ and Lambert JA (1998b) A hierarchy of propositions:deciding which level to address in casework. Science and Justice 38:231-239.
4. Cook R, Evett IW, Jackson G, Jones PJ and Lambert JA (1999) Case pre-assessment and review of a two-way transfer case. Science and Justice 39:103-122.
5. Darboux JG, Appell PE and Poincaré JH (1908) Examen critique des divers systμemes ou etudes graphologiques auxquels a donne lieu le bordereau. In: L'affaire Drefus - La revision du procμes de Rennes - enquete de la chambre criminelle de la Cour de Cassation. Ligue francaise des droits de l'homme et du citoyen, Paris, France:499-600.
6. Darroch J (1987) Probability and criminal trials; some comments prompted by the Splatt trial and The Royal Commission. The Professional Statistician 6:3-7.
7. Dudley RJ and Smalldon KW (1978) The comparison of distributional shapes with particular reference to a problem in forensic science. International Statistical Review 46:53-63.
8. Evett IW (1984) A quantitative theory for interpreting transfer evidence in criminal cases. Applied Statistics 33:25-32.
9. Evett IW (1991) Interpretation: A personal odyssey. In: The use of statistics in forensic science (Eds. CGG Aitken and DA Stoney), Ellis Horwood, Chichester:9-22.
10. Fairley WB and Mosteller W (1977) Statistics and public policy, Addison-Wesley, London:355-379.
11. Lark RM and Rawlins BG (2008) Can we predict the provenance of a soil sample for forensic purposes by reference to a spatial database? European Journal of Soil Science 59:1000-1006.
12. Meier P and Zabell S (1980) Benjamin Pierce and the Howland will. Journal of the American Statistical Association 75:497-506.
13. Neumann C, Champod C, Puch-Solis R, Egli N, Anthonioz A and Bromage-Griffths A (2007) Computation of likelihood ratios in fingerprint identification for configurations of any number of minutiae. Journal of Forensic Sciences 52:54-64.
14. Parker JB and Holford A (1968) Optimum test statistics with particular reference to a forensic science problem. Applied Statistics 17:237-251.
15. Pye K (2007) Geological and soil evidence, forensic applications, CRC, Boca Raton, FL.
16. Rawlins BG, Kemp SJ, Hodgkinson EH, Riding JB, Vane CH, Poulton C and Freeborough K (2006) Potential and pitfalls in establishing the provenance of earth-related samples in forensic identification. Journal of Forensic Sciences 51:832-845.
17. Saks MJ, Koehler JJ (2005) The coming paradigm shift in forensic identification science. Science 309:892:895.
18. Taroni F, Bozza S and Aitken CGG (2005) Decision analysis in forensic science. Journal of Forensic Sciences 50:894-905.
19. Taroni F, Aitken CGG, Garbolino P and Biedermann A (2006) Bayesian networks and probabilistic inference in forensic science, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.
20. Thompson WC and Schumann EL (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.