The importance of having a logical framework for expert conclusions in forensic dna profiling: Illustrations from the Amanda Knox case

Wrongful Convictions and Miscarriages of Justice: Causes and Remedies in North American and European Criminal Justice Systems

Volumn , Issue , 2013, Pages 137-160

  Vuille, Joëlle ^a   Biedermann, Alex ^b   Taroni, Franco ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LAUSANNE   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84920690259     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9780203597286     Document Type: Chapter

References (17)

1. Aitken, C. G. G., Roberts, P, & Jackson, G. (2010). Fundamentals of probability and statistical evidence in criminal proceedings, Guidance for judges, lawyers, forensic scientists and expert witnesses. Royal Statistical Society’s Working Group on Statistics and the Law.
2. Aitken, C. G. G., & Taroni, F. (2004). Statistics and the evaluation of evidencefor forensic scientists. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
3. Balding, D. J. (1999). When can a DNA profile be regarded as unique? Science & Justice, 39, 257–260.
4. Balding D. J., & Buckleton J. (2009). Interpreting low template profiles. Forensic Science International: Genetics, 4, 1–10.
5. Buckleton, J., Triggs, C. M., & Walsh, S. J. (2004). Forensic DNA evidence interpretation. Boca Raton: Crc Press, 2004.
6. Buckleton, J., Walsh, & K. A. J. Evett, I. W. (1991). Who is “random man”? Journal of the Forensic Science Society, 31, 463–468.
7. Champod, C., & Vuille, J. (2010). Scientific evidence in Europe-Admissibility, appraisal and equality of arms. Strasbourg: Council of Europe, European Committee on Crime Problems.
8. Cook, R., Evett, I. W., Jackson, G., Jones, P. J., & Lambert, J. A. (1998). A hierarchy of propositions: Deciding which level to address in casework. Science & Justice, 38(4), 231–239.
9. Evett, I. W., Gill, P, Jackson, G., Whitaker, J., & Champod, C. (2002). Interpeting small quantities of DNA: The hierarchy of propositions and the use of Bayesian networks. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 47(3), 520–530.
10. Evett, I. W. & Weir, B. S. (1998). Interpreting DNA evidence: Statistical genetics for forensic scientists. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer.
11. Gill, P., & Buckleton J. (2010). A universal strategy to interpret DNA profiles that does not require a definition of low-copy number. Forensic Science International: Genetics, 4, 221–227.
12. Gill, P., & Kirkham, A. (2004). Development of a simulation model to assess the impact of contamination in casework using STRs. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 49, 485–491.
13. Petricevic, S., Whitaker, J., Buckleton, J., Vintiner, S., Patel, J., Simon, P, Ferraby, H., Hermiz, W., & Russell, A. (2010). Validation and development of interpretation guidelines for low copy number (LCN) DNA profiling in New Zealand using the AmpFlSTR® SGM PlusTM multiplex. Forensic Science International: Genetics 4, 305–310.
14. Redmayne, M., Roberts, P, Aitken, C. G. G., & Jackson, G. (2011). Forensic science evidence in question. Criminal Law Review, 5, 347–356.
15. Robertson, B., & Vignaux, G. A. (1995). Interpreting evidence, evaluating forensic science in the courtroom. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
16. Taroni, F., Champod, C., & Margot, P. (1998). Forerunners of Bayesianism in early forensic science. Jurimetrics, 38, 183–200.
17. Thompson, W. C., Taroni, F., & Aitken C. G. G. (2003). How the probability of a false positive affects the value of DNA evidence. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 48, 47–54.