Arguments, stories and criminal evidence: A formal hybrid theory

Law and Philosophy Library

Volumn 92, Issue , 2011, Pages 1-289

  Bex, Floris J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF DUNDEE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85125896304     PISSN: 15724395     EISSN: 22150315     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: None     Document Type: Chapter

References (174)

1. Allen, J.F. and Ferguson, G. (1994) Actions and events in interval temporal logic. Journal of Logic and Computation 4:5, 531–579.
2. Amgoud, L. and Cayrol, C. (2002) A reasoning model based on the production of acceptable arguments. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 34:1, 97–215.
3. Anderson, T.J. (1999) On generalizations I: A preliminary exploration. South Texas Law Review 40, p. 455.
4. Anderson, T.J., Schum, D.A. and Twining, W.L. (2005) Analysis of Evidence, 2nd edition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
5. Aristotle. (2005) Poetics. In Butcher, S.H. (eds.), Wordplay Archives, http://wordplayer.com/archives/poetics.txt
6. Ashley, K.D. (1991) Modeling Legal Arguments: Reasoning with Cases and Hypotheticals, MIT Press, Cambridge (Massachusetts).
7. Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T. and McBurney, P. (2006) Computational representation of practical argument. Synthese 152:2, 157–206.
8. Bal, M. (1985) Narratology: Introduction to the Theory of Narrative, University of Toronto Press, Toronto.
9. Bayes, R.T. (1763) An essay toward solving a problem in the doctrine of chances. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society London 53, 370–418.
10. Bench-Capon, T.J.M. (2003) Persuasion in practical argument using value – based argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation 13:3, 429–448.
11. Bennett, W.L. and Feldman, M.S. (1981) Reconstructing Reality in the Courtroom: Justice and Judgment in American Culture, Methuen – Tavistock, London.
12. Bex, F.J., van Koppen, P.J., Prakken, H. and Verheij, B. (2010) Evidence for a good story – a hybrid theory of arguments, stories and criminal evidence. Artificial Intelligence and Law 18, 2.
13. Bex, F.J. (2009) Analysing stories using schemes. In Kaptein, H., Prakken, H. and Verheij B. (eds.), Legal Evidence and Proof: Statistics, Stories, Logic, 93–116, Ashgate Publishing, Aldershot.
14. Bex, F.J., Bench-Capon, T. and Atkinson, K. (2009) Did he jump or was he pushed? abductive practical reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law 17:2, 79–99.
15. Bex, F.J., Braak, S.W. van den, Oostendorp, H. van, Prakken, H., Verheij, B. and Vreeswijk, G. (2007b) Sense – making software for crime investigation: how to combine stories and arguments? Law, Probability and Risk 6, 145–168.
16. Bex, F.J. and Prakken, H (2004) Reinterpreting arguments in dialogue: an application to evidential reasoning. JURIX 2004: The 17th Annual Conference, 119–129, IOS Press, Amsterdam.
17. Bex, F.J. and Prakken, H. (2008) Investigating stories in a formal dialogue Game. Computational Models of Argument. Proceedings of COMMA 2008, 73–84, IOS Press, Amsterdam.
18. Bex, F.J., Prakken, H., Reed, C. and Walton, D.N. (2003) Towards a formal account of reasoning about evidence: argumentation schemes and generalisations. Artificial Intelligence and Law 11, 125–165.
19. Bex, F.J., Prakken, H. and Verheij, B. (2006) Anchored narratives in reasoning about evidence. JURIX 2006: The 19th Annual Conference, 11–20, IOS Press, Amsterdam.
20. Bex, F.J., Prakken, H. and Verheij, B. (2007a) Formalising argumentative story – based analysis of evidence. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 1–10, ACM Press, New York, (New York).
21. Bex, F.J. and Verheij, B. (2009) Het onderbouwen van een feitelijk oordeel in een strafzaak: methode, casus, aanbevelingen (Grounding a judgement about the facts in a criminal case: method, case, recommendations). In Van Koppen, P.J., Merkelbach, H., Jelicic, M., and de Keijser, J.W. (eds.), Reizen Met Mijn Rechter: Psychologie Van Het Recht, Kluwer, Deventer.
22. Black, J.B. and Wilensky, R. (1979) An evaluation of story grammars. Cognitive Science 3, 213–230.
23. Bondarenko, A., Dung, P.M., Kowalski, R.A. and Toni, F. (1997) An abstract, argumentation – theoretic approach to default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 93:1–2, 63–101.
24. Braak, S.W. van den (2010) Sensemaking Software for Crime Analysis. Doctoral dissertation, Intelligent Systems Group, Utrecht University (SIKS Dissertation Series No. 2010–2012).
25. Braak, S.W. van den, Oostendorp, H. van, Vreeswijk, G. and Prakken, H. (2008) Representing Narrative and Testimonial Knowledge in Sense – making Software for Crime Analysis. JURIX 2008: The 21st Annual Conference, 160–169, IOS Press, Amsterdam.
26. Braak, S.W. van den, Vreeswijk, G. and Prakken, H. (2007) AVERs: An argument visualization tool for representing stories about evidence. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, ACM,NewYork,NY(NewYork).
27. Braak, S.W. van den, Oostendorp, H. van, Prakken, H. and Vreeswijk, G.A.W. (2006) A critical review of argument visualization tools: do users become better reasoners. ECAI – 06: Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument. Trento
28. Burch, R. (2008) Charles sanders peirce, In Zalta, E.N. (eds.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Fall 2008 edition, http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/peirce/
29. Bylander, T., Allemang, D., Tanner, M.C. and Josephson, J.R. (1991) The computational complexity of abduction. Artificial Intelligence 49:1–3, 25–60.
30. Chesñevar, C.I., Maguitman, A.G. and Loui, R.P. (2000) Logical models of argument. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) 32:4, 337–383.
31. Cohen, L.J. (1977) The Probable and The Provable, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
32. Console, L. and Dupré, D.T. (1994) Abductive reasoning with abstraction axioms. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 810, 98–112, Springer, Berlin.
33. Console, L., Dupré, D.T. and Torasso, P. (1991) On the relationship between abduction and deduction. Journal of Logic and Computation 1, 661–690.
34. Console, L. and Torasso, P. (1991) A spectrum of logical definitions of model – based diagnosis. Computational Intelligence 7:3, 133–141.
35. Crombag, H.F.M. and Israëls, H. (2008) Moord in Anjum – Te veel niet gestelde vragen, Boom Juridische Uitgevers, Den Haag.
36. Crombag, H.F.M., Wagenaar, W.A. and Koppen, P.J. van. (1994) Dubieuze Zaken: De Psychologie van Strafrechtelijk Bewijs, 2nd edition, Contact, Amsterdam.
37. Dawid, P. (2005) Probability and Proof – Appendix to “Analysis of Evidence”. http://www.cambridge.org/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=052167316X&ss=res Last accessed 30–1–2006.
38. De Poot, C.J., Bokhorst, R.J., Koppen, P.J. van and Muller, E.R. (2004) Rechercheportret – Over Dillemma’s in de Opsporing, Kluwer, Alphen a.d. Rijn.
39. Dennett, D.C. (1978) Brainstorms: Philosophical Essays on Mind and Psychology, MIT press, Cambridge (Massachusetts).
40. Dingley, A.M. (1999) The ballpoint case: a wigmorean analysis. In Nijboer, J.F. and Malsch, M. (eds.), Complex Cases: Perspectives on the Netherlands Criminal Justice System, 179–188, Thela Thesis, Amsterdam.
41. Dung, P.M. (1995) On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n – person games. Artificial Intelligence 77:2, 321–357.
42. Eco, U. and Sebeok, T.A. (1983) The Sign of Three: Dupin, Holmes, Pierce, Indiana University Press, Bloomington (Indiana).
43. Eemeren, F.H. van and Grootendorst, R. (2004) A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma – Dialectical Approach, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
44. Eemeren, F.H. van, Grootendorst, R., Henkemans, F.S., Blair, J.A., Johnson, R.H., Krabbe, E.C.W., Plantin, C., Walton, D.N., Willard, C.A. and Woods, J. (1996) Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale (New Jersey).
45. Einhorn, H.J. and Hogarth, R.M. (1986) Judging probable cause. Psychological Bulletin. 99:1, 3–19.
46. Feteris, E.T. (1999) What went wrong in the ballpoint case?. In Malsch, M. and Nijboer, J.F. (eds.), Complex Cases: Perspectives on the Netherlands Criminal Justice System, 159–179, Thela Thesis, Amsterdam.
47. Freeman, J.B. (1991) Dialectics and the Macrostructure of Arguments: A Theory of Argument Structure, Foris Publications, Berlin.
48. Gabbay, D.M. and Woods, J. (2006) Advice on Abductive Logic, 14th edition, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
49. Gabbay, D.M., Hogger, C.J. and Robinson, J.A. (1993) Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming, Volume 1, Logical Foundations, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
50. Gordon, T.F., Prakken, H. and Walton, D. (2007) The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof. Artificial Intelligence 171:10–15, 875–896.
51. Hage, J.C. (1996) A theory of legal reasoning and a logic to match. Artificial Intelligence and Law 4:3, 199–273.
52. Hage, J.C. and Verheij, B. (1999) The law as a dynamic interconnected system of states of affair: a legal top ontology. International Journal of Human – Computer Studies 51, 1043–1077.
53. Hanson, N.R. (1962) Patterns of Discovery: An Inquiry into the Conceptual Foundations of Science, The Scientific Book Guild, London.
54. Hepler, A.B., Dawid, A.P. and Leucari, V. (2007) Object – oriented graphical representations of complex patterns of evidence. Law, Probability and Risk 6, 275–293.
55. Heuer, R.J. (1999) Psychology of Intelligence Analysis, Center for the Study of Intelligence, Central Intelligence Agency.
56. Hielkema, J. (1999) Experts in dutch criminal procedure. In Malsch, M. and Nijboer, J.F. (eds.), Complex Cases: Perspectives on the Netherlands Criminal Justice System, 27–46, Thela Thesis, Amsterdam.
57. Hume, D. (1888) A treatise of human nature. In Selby–Bigge, L.A. (eds.), Hume’s Treatise of Human Nature, Clarendon Press, Oxford.
58. Johnson, N.S. and Mandler, J.M. (1980) A tale of two structures: Underlying and surface forms in stories. Poetics 9, 51–86.
59. Josephson, J.R. (2002) On the proof dynamics of inference to the best explanation. In MacCrimmon, M. and Tillers, P. (eds.), The Dynamics of Judicial Proof – Computation, Logic and Common Sense, 287–306, Physica Verlag, Berlin.
60. Josephson, J.R. and Josephson, S.G. (1994) Abductive Inference: Computiation, Philosophy, Technology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
61. Kadane, J.B. and Schum, D.A. (1996) A Probabilistic Analysis of the Sacco and Vanzetti Evidence, Wiley, New York (New York).
62. Kautz, H.A. (1991) A formal theory of plan recognition and its implementation. In Allen, J.F., Kautz, H.A., Pelavin, R.N., and Tenenberg, J.D. (eds.), Reasoning About Plans, 69–124, Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo (California).
63. Keppens, J. and Schafer, B. (2005) Assumption – based peg unification for crime scenario modelling. JURIX 2005: The 18th Annual Conference, 49–58, IOS Press, Amsterdam.
64. Keppens, J. and Schafer, B. (2006) Knowledge based crime scenario modelling. Expert Systems with Applications 30, 203–222.
65. Kerstholt, J.H. and Eikelboom, A.R. (2007) Effects of prior interpretation on situation assessment in crime analysis. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 20:5, 455–465.
66. Knigge, G. (2001) Leerstukken Van Het Strafprocesrecht, 5th edition, Kluwer, Deventer.
67. Konolige, K. (1994) Using default and causal reasoning in diagnosis. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 11:1, 97–135.
68. Kowalski, R. and Sergot, M. (1986) A logic – based calculus of events. New Generation Computing 4:5, 67–94.
69. Lempert, R. (1986) The new evidence scholarship: analyzing the process of proof. Boston University Law Review 66, 439.
70. Lent, L. van. (2008) Externe Openbaarheid in Het Strafproces., Dissertation Utrecht University, Utrecht.
71. Levitt, T.S. and Laskey, K.B. (2000) Computational inference for evidential reasoning in support of judicial proof. Cardozo Law Review 22, 1691.
72. Loftus, E.F. (1996) Eyewitness Testimony, 2nd edition, Harvard University Press, Cambridge (Massachusetts).
73. Loui, R.P. (1987) Defeat among arguments: a system of defeasible inference. Computational Intelligence 3:1, 100–106.
74. Loui, R.P. (1995) Hart’s critics on defeasible concepts and ascriptivism. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 21–30, ACM Press, New York (New York).
75. Loui, R.P. (1998) Process and policy: resource – bounded nondemonstrative reasoning. Computational Intelligence 14:1, 1–38.
76. Loui, R.P. and Norman, J. (1995) Rationales and argument moves. Artificial Intelligence and Law 3:3, 159–189.
77. Lucas, P. (1997) Symbolic diagnosis and its formalisation. The Knowledge Engineering Review 12, 109–146.
78. MacCrimmon, M., and Tillers, P. (eds.) (2002) The Dynamics of Judicial Proof: Computation, Logic, and Common Sense, Physica – Verlag, Berlin.
79. Malsch, M. and Freckelton, I. (2009) The evaluation of evidence: differences between legal systems. In Kaptein, H., Prakken, H., and Verheij, B. (eds.), Legal Evidence and Proof: Statistics, Stories, Logic, 117–134, Ashgate, Aldershot.
80. Mandler, J.M. and Johnson, N.S. (1977) Remembrance of things parsed: Story structure and recall. Cognitive Psychology 9, 111–151.
81. Modgil, S. (2007) An abstract theory of argumentation that accommodates defeasible reasoning about preferences. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 4724: 648–659, Springer, Berlin.
82. Nielsen, S.H. and Parsons, S. (2006) An application of formal argumentation: Fusing Bayes nets in MAS. Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2006, IOS Press, Amsterdam.
83. Nijboer, J.F. (1993) Common law tradition in evidence scholarship observed from a continental perspective. The American Journal of Comparative Law 51:2, 299–338.
84. Nijboer, J.F. (2000) Strafrechtelijk Bewijsrecht, 4th edition, Ars Aequi Libri, Nijmegen.
85. Nijboer, J.F. and Sennef, A. (1999) Justification. In Nijboer, J.F. and Malsch, M. (eds.), Complex Cases: Perspectives on the Netherlands Criminal Justice System, 11–26, Thela Thesis, Amsterdam.
86. Pardo, M.S. and Allen, R.J. (2007) Juridical proof and the best explanation. Law and Philosophy 27, 223–268. Springer.
87. Pearl, J. (1988a) Embracing causality in default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 35, 259–271.
88. Pearl, J. (1988b) Probabilistic Reasoning in Intelligent Systems, Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo (California).
89. Pearl, J. (2000) Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
90. Peirce, C.S. (1931) Hartshorne, C., Weiss, P., and Burks, A. (eds.), Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, Harvard University Press, Cambridge (Massachusetts).
91. Pennington, N. and Hastie, R. (1986) Evidence evaluation in complex decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51, 242–258.
92. Pennington, N. and Hastie, R. (1988) Explanation – based decision making: effects of memory structure on judgment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 14:3, 521–533.
93. Pennington, N. and Hastie, R. (1992) Explaining the evidence: tests of the story model for juror decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 62:2, 189–206.
94. Pennington, N. and Hastie, R. (1993a) Reasoning in explanation – based decision making. Cognition 49:1–2, 123–163.
95. Pennington, N. and Hastie, R. (1993b) The story model for juror decision making. In Hastie, R. (eds.), Inside the Juror: The Psychology of Juror Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
96. Pollock, J.L. (1987) Defeasible reasoning. Cognitive Science 11:4, 481–518.
97. Pollock, J.L. (1995) Cognitive Carpentry: A Blueprint for How to Build a Person, MIT Press, Cambridge (Massachusetts).
98. Poole, D. (1988) A logical framework for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 36:1, 27–47.
99. Poole, D. (1994) Representing diagnosis knowledge. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 11:1, 33–50.
100. Poole, D., Mackworth, A. and Goebel, R. (1997) Computational Intelligence: A Logical Approach, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
101. Prakken, H. (1997) Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
102. Prakken, H. (2005a) A study of accrual of arguments, with applications to evidential reasoning. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 85–94, ACM, New York (New York).
103. Prakken, H. (2005b) Coherence and flexibility in dialogue games for argumentation. Journal of Logic and Computation 15, 1009–1040.
104. Prakken, H. (2006) Formal systems for persuasion dialogue. The Knowledge Engineering Review 21:02, 163–188.
105. Prakken, H. and Sartor, G. (1996) A dialectical model of assessing conflicting arguments in legal reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law 4:3, 331–368.
106. Prakken, H. and Sartor, G. (1997) Argument – based extended logic programming with defeasible priorities. Journal of Applied Non – classical Logics 7, 25–75.
107. Prakken, H. and Vreeswijk, G. (2002) Logics for defeasible argumentation. In Goebel, R. and Guenthner, F. (eds.), Handbook of Philosophical Logic, 219–318, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
108. Propp, V. (1968) The Morphology of the Folktale, University of Texas Press, Austin (Texas).
109. Quine, W.V.O. and Ulian, J. (1970) The Web of Belief, Random House, New York (New York).
110. Rahwan, I., Ramchurn, S.D., Jennings, N.R., McBurney, P., Parsons, S. and Sonenberg, L. (2004) Argumentation – based negotiation. The Knowledge Engineering Review 18:04, 343–375.
111. Rahwan, I. and Reed, C. (2009) The argument interchange format. In Rahwan, I. and Simari, G. (eds.), Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, Springer.
112. Reed, C. and Rowe, G. (2004) Araucaria: software for argument diagramming, analysis and representation. International Journal of AI Tools 13, 961–980.
113. Reed, C., Walton, D. and Macagno, F. (2007) Argument diagramming in logic, law and artificial intelligence. Knowledge Engineering Review 22:1, pp 87–109.
114. Reichenbach, H.F.G. (1978) Reichenbach, M. and Cohen, R.S. (eds.), Selected Writings: 1909– 1953, Springer, Berlin.
115. Reiter, R. (1980) A logic for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 13, 81–132.
116. Rescher, N. (1977) Dialectics: A Controversy – Oriented Approach to the Theory of Knowledge, State University of New York Press, Albany (New York).
117. Rider, Y. and Thomason, N. (2008) Cognitive and pedagogical benefits of argument mapping: L.A.M.P. guides the way to better thinking. In Okada, A., Buckingham Shum, S. and Sherborne, T. (eds.), Knowledge Cartography: Software Tools and Mapping Techniques, Springer, London.
118. Rumelhart, D.E. (1975) Notes on a schema for stories. In Bobrow, D.G. and Collins, A. (eds.), Representation and Understanding: Studies in Cognitive Science, Academic Press, New York (New York).
119. Sartor, G. (2008) Legality Policies and Theories of Legality: From ‘Bananas’ to Radbruch’s Formula. EUI Working Papers LAW 27.
120. Schank, R.C. (1975) The structure of episodes in memory. In D. Bobrow and A. Collins (eds.), Representation and Understanding: Studies in Cognitive Science, 235–259, Academic Press, New York.
121. Schank, R.C. (1986) Explanations Patterns: Understanding Mechanically and Creatively, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale (New Jersey).
122. Schank, R.C. and Abelson, R.P. (1977) Scripts, Plans, Goals and Understanding: an Inquiry into Human Knowledge Structures, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale (New Jersey).
123. Schum, D.A. (1994) The Evidential Foundations of Probabilistic Reasoning, Northwestern University Press, Evanston (Illinois).
124. Schum, D.A. (2001) Species of abductive reasoning in fact investigation in law. Cardozo Law Review 22, 1645–1681.
125. Schum, D.A. (2005) Narratives in Intelligence Analysis: Necessary but Often Dangerous, Evidence Research, London.
126. Shanahan, M. (1989) Prediction is deduction but explanation is abduction. Proceedings of International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence 89, 1055–1060.
127. Shen, Q., Keppens, J., Aitken, C., Schafer, B. and Lee, M. (2007) A scenario – driven decision support system for serious crime investigation. Law, Probability and Risk 5:2, 87–117.
128. Simon, H.A. (1982) Models of Bounded Rationality, MIT Press, Cambridge (Massachusetts).
129. Simon, D. (2001) A third view of the black box: cognitive coherence in legal decision making. University of Chicago Law Review 71, 511–586.
130. Stein, N.L. and Glenn, C.G. (1979) An analysis of story comprehension in elementary school children. New directions in discourse processing 2, 53–120.
131. Thagard, P. (1988) Computational Philosophy of Science, MIT Press, Cambridge (Massachusetts).
132. Thagard, P. (1989) Explanatory coherence. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 12:3, 435–502.
133. Thagard, P. (2004) Causal inference in legal decision making: explanatory coherence vs. bayesian networks. Applied Artificial Intelligence 18:3, 231–249.
134. Thagard, P. (2005) Testimony, credibility, and explanatory coherence. Erkenntnis 63:3, 295–316.
135. Thagard, P. and Shelley, C.P. (1997) Abductive reasoning: logic, visual thinking, and coherence. In Dalla Chiara, M.L. (eds.), Logic and Scientific methods, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
136. Thorndyke, P.W. (1977) Cognitive structures in comprehension and memory of narrative discours. Cognitive Psychology 9, 77–110.
137. Tillers, P. (2005) Picturing Inference, Gerechtigkeitswissenschaft, Berliner Wissenschafts–Verlag, Berlin.
138. Tillers, P. (2006) The Dynamic Evidence Page, Accessed 14–5–2009. http://www.tillers.net/Last.
139. Toolan, M. (2001) Narrative: A Critical Linguistic Introduction, 2nd edition, Routledge, London, New York (New York).
140. Toulmin, S.E. (1958) The Uses of Argument, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
141. Toulmin, S.E. (2003) The Uses of Argument, Updated edition, (originally published in 1958), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
142. Trabasso, T. and Sperry, L.L. (1985) Causal relatedness and importance of story events. Journal of Memory and Language 24:5, 595–611.
143. Trabasso, T. and Broek, P. van den. (1985) Causal thinking and the representation of narrative events. Journal of Memory and Language 24:5, 612–630.
144. Twardy, C. (2004) Argument maps improve critical thinking. Teaching Philosophy 27:2, 95–116.
145. Twining, W.L. (2007) Argumentation, stories and generalizations: a comment. Law, Probability & Risk 6, 169–185.
146. Twining, W.L. (1994) Rethinking Evidence: Exploratory Essays, Northwestern University Press, Evanston (Illinios).
147. Twining, W.L. (1995) Anchored narratives, a comment. European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice 3, 106–114.
148. Twining, W.L. (1999) Necessary but dangerous? generalizations and narrative in argumentation about “facts” in criminal process. In Nijboer, J.F. and Malsch, M. (eds.), Complex Cases: Perspectives on the Netherlands Criminal Justice System, 69–98, Thela Thesis, Amsterdam.
149. Twining, W.L. (2006) Rethinking Evidence: Exploratory Essays, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
150. Van Gelder, T. (2007) The rationale for rationale. Law, Probability and Risk 6, 23–42.
151. Verheij, B. (1996) Rules, Reasons, Arguments: Formal Studies of Argumentation and Defeat, Doctoral dissertation, University of Maastricht.
152. Verheij, B. (1999) Automated argument assistance for lawyers. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 43–52, ACM New York (New York).
153. Verheij, B. (2000) Anchored narratives and dialectical argumentation. In Van Koppen, P.J. and Roos, N. (eds.), Rationality, Information and Progress in Law and Psychology: Liber Amicorum Hans F. Crombag, 203–226, Metajuridica Publications, Maastricht.
154. Verheij, B. (2003a) DefLog: On the logical interpretation of prima facie justified assumptions. Journal of Logic and Computation 13:3, 319–346.
155. Verheij, B. (2003b) Dialectical argumentation with argumentation schemes: an approach to legal logic. Artificial Intelligence and Law 11:2, 167–195.
156. Verheij, B. (2005a) Evaluating arguments based on Toulmin’s scheme. Argumentation 19:3, 347–371.
157. Verheij, B. (2005b) Virtual Arguments: On the Design of Argument Assistants for Lawyers and Other Arguers, T.M.C. Asser Press, Den Haag.
158. Verheij, B. and Bex, F.J. (2009) Accepting the truth of a story about the facts of a criminal case. In Kaptein, H., Prakken, H., and Verheij, B. (eds.), Legal Evidence and Proof: Statistics, Stories, Logic, 161–193, Ashgate, Aldershot.
159. Verheij, B., Hage, J.C. and Herik, H.J. van den. (1998) An integrated view on rules and principles. Artificial Intelligence and Law 6:1, 3–26.
160. Vreeswijk, G. (1993) Defeasible dialectics: A controversy – oriented approach towards defeasible argumentation. Journal of Logic and Computation 3:3, 317–334.
161. Wagenaar, W.A. and Crombag, H.F.M. (2005) The Popular Policeman and Other Cases: Psychological Perspectives on Legal Evidence, Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam.
162. Wagenaar, W.A., Koppen, P.J. van and Crombag, H.F.M. (1993) Anchored Narratives: The Psychology of Criminal Evidence, St. Martin’s Press, New York (New York).
163. Walton, D.N. (1998) The New Dialectic: Conversational Contexts of Argument, University of Toronto Press, Toronto.
164. Walton, D.N. (2001) Abductive, presumptive and plausible arguments. Informal Logic 21:2, 141–172.
165. Walton, D.N. and Schafer, B. (2006) Arthur, George and the mystery of the missing motive: towards a theory of evidentiary reasoning about motives. International Commentary on Evidence 4:2, 1–47.
166. Walton, D.N. (1996) Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah (New Jersey).
167. Walton, D.N. (2002) Legal Argumentation and Evidence, Penn, State University Press, University Park (Pennsylvania).
168. Walton, D.N. and Krabbe, E.C.W. (1995) Commitment in Dialogue, State University of New York Press, Albany (New York).
169. Walton, D.N. and Reed, C.A. (2002) Argumentation schemes and defeasible inferences. Proceedings of the ECAI 2002 Workshop on Computational Model of Natural Argument, 45–55.
170. Walton, D., Reed, C. and Macagno, F. (2008) Argumentation Schemes, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
171. Warren, W.H., Nicholas, D.W. and Trabasso, T. (1979) Event chains and inferences in understanding narratives. New directions in discourse processing 2, 23–52.
172. Wigmore, J.H. (1931) The Principles of Judicial Proof or the Process of Proof as Given by Logic, Psychology, and General Experience, and Illustrated in Judicial Trials, 2nd edition, Little, Brown and Company, Boston (Massachusetts).
173. Wigmore, J.H. (1940) A Treatise on the Anglo – American System of Evidence in Trials at Common Law, 3rd edition, Little, Brown and Company, Boston (Massachusetts).
174. Wyner, A., Bench-Capon, T.J.M. and Atkinson, K. (2008) Three senses of argument. In Sartor, G. (eds.), Computable Models of the Law: Languages, Dialogues, Games, Ontologies, Springer, Berlin.