Understanding forensic science opinions

Handbook of Forensic Science

Volumn , Issue , 2013, Pages 419-445

  Jackson, Graham ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ABERTAY DUNDEE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85145517215     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9781843927327-22     Document Type: Chapter

References (34)

1. Aitken, C.G.C. and Taroni, F. (2004) Statistics and the Evaluation of Evidence for Forensic Scientists. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons Ltd.
2. Biedermann, A., Taroni, F., Delemont, O., Semadeni, C. and Davison, A.C. (2005a) ‘The evaluation of evidence in the forensic investigation of fire incidents (Part I):an approach using Bayesian networks’, Forensic Science International, 147:49-57.
3. Biedermann, A., Taroni, F., Delemont, O., Semadeni, C. and Davison, A.C. (2005b) ‘The evaluation of evidence in the forensic investigation of fire incidents (Part II):practical examples of the use of Bayesian networks’, Forensic Science International, 147: 59-69.
4. Biedermann, A., Taroni, F. and Garbolino, P. (2007) ‘Equal prior probabilities: can one do any better?', Forensic Science International, 172: 85-93.
5. Broeders, A.P.A. (2007) ‘Principles of forensic identification science’ in T. Newburn et al. (eds), A Handbook of Criminal Investigation. Cullompton: Willan Publishing.
6. Champod, C. and Evett, I.W. (2001) ‘A probabilistic approach to fingerprint evidence’, Journal of Forensic Identification, 51: 101-123.
7. Champod, C., Evett, I.W. and Jackson, G. (2004) ‘Establishing the most appropriate databases for addressing source level propositions’, Science and Justice, 44:153-164.
8. Cole, S.A. (2005) ‘More than Zero: Accounting for Error in Latent Fingerprint Identification’, The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 95: 985-1078.
9. Cook, R., Evett, I.W., Jackson, G., Jones, P.J. and Lambert, J.A. (1998a) ‘A model for case assessment and interpretation’, Science and Justice, 38: 151-156.
10. Cook, R., Evett, I.W., Jackson, G., Jones, P.J. and Lambert, J.A. (1998b) ‘A hierarchy of propositions: deciding which level to address in casework’, Science and Justice, 38:231-240.
11. Curran, J.M., Hicks, T.N. and Buckleton, J.S. (2000) Forensic Interpretation of Glass Evidence. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press.
12. ENFSI Expert Working Group Marks Conclusion Scale Committee (2006) ‘Conclusion Scale for Shoeprint and Toolmarks examinations’, Forensic Science International, 172:85-93.
13. Evett, I.W. (1995) ‘Avoiding the transposed conditional’, Science and Justice, 35:127-131.
14. Evett, I.W. and Weir, B.S. (1998) Interpreting DNA Evidence. Sunderland, Massachusetts:Sinaur.
15. Evett, I.W., Foreman, L.A., Jackson, G. and Lambert, J.A. (2000a) ‘DNA profiling: a discussion of issues relating to the reporting of very small match probabilities’, Criminal Law Review, May: 341-355.
16. Evett, I.W., Gill, P.D., Jackson, G., Whitaker, J. and Champod, C. (2002) ‘Interpreting small quantities of DNA: the hierarchy of propositions and the use of Bayesian networks’, Journal of Forensic Sciences, 47: 520-530.
17. Evett, I.W., Jackson, G. and Lambert, J.A. (2000b) ‘More on the hierarchy of propositions:exploring the distinction between explanations and propositions’, Science and Justice, 40: 3-10.
18. Evett, I.W., Jackson, G., Lambert, J.A. and McCrossan, S. (2000c) ‘The impact of the principles of evidence interpretation on the structure and content of statements’, Science and Justice, 40: 233-239.
19. Grieve, M.C. (2000) ‘A survey on the evidential value of fibres and the interpretation of the findings in fibre transfer cases. Part 2 - interpretation and reporting’, Science and Justice, 40: 201-209.
20. Jackson, G., Jones, S., Booth, G., Champod, C. and Evett, I.W. (2006) ‘The nature of forensic science opinion - a possible framework to guide thinking and practice in investigations and in court proceedings’, Science and Justice, 46: 33-44.
21. Kaye, D.H. and Koehler, J.J. (2003) ‘The misquantification of probative value’, Law and Human Behaviour, 27: 645-659.
22. Krauß, W. and Simmerlein, N. (2004) ‘Collaborative Exercise Trial 11, 2004', Forensic Science Institute, Landeskriminalant Baden-Wurttemberg, 70372 Stuttgart, Germany. Available at http://www.enfsi.org/ewg/efg/Coll.%20Exercise/document_view (Last accessed 17 January 2008).
23. Lucy, D. (2005) Introduction to Statistics for Forensic Scientists. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons Ltd.
24. Nordby, J.J. (2000) Dead Reckoning: the Art of Forensic Detection. Boca Raton, Florida:CRC Press.
25. Robertson, B. and Vignaux, G.A. (1995) Interpreting Evidence: Evaluating Forensic Science Evidence in the Courtroom. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons Ltd.
26. Satterthwaite, J. and Lambert, J.A. (1989) ‘Interpreting the Interpretations. A survey to assess the effectiveness of conclusions in statements written by forensic scientists’, Home Office Forensic Science Service Technical Note 714.
27. Saks, M.J., Risinger, D.M., Rosenthal, R. and Thompson, W.C. (2003) ‘Context effects in forensic science: a review of the science of scene to crime laboratory practice in the US’, Science and Justice, 43: 77-90.
28. Sjerps, M. and Biesheuvel, D.B. (1999) ‘The interpretation of conventional and Bayesian verbal scales for expressing expert opinion: a small experiment among jurists’, Forensic Linguistics, 6: 1350-1771.
29. Taroni, F. and Aitken, C.G.G. (1998a) ‘Probabilistic reasoning in the law, part 1:assessment of probabilities and explanation of the value of DNA evidence’, Science and Justice, 38: 165-177.
30. Taroni, F. and Aitken, C.G.G. (1998b) ‘Probabilistic reasoning in the law, part 2:assessment of probabilities and explanation of the value of trace evidence other than DNA’, Science and Justice, 38: 165-177.
31. Taroni, F. and Biedermann, A. (2005) ‘Inadequacies of posterior probabilities for the assessment of scientific evidence’, Law, Probability and Risk, 4: 89-114.
32. Taroni, F., Aitken, C.G.G. and Garbolino, P. (2001) ‘DeFinetti’s subjectivism, the assessment of probabilities and the evaluation of evidence: a commentary’, Science and Justice, 41: 145-150.
33. Taroni, F., Aitken, C.G.G., Garbolino, P. and Biedermann, A. (2006) Bayesian networks and probabilistic inference in forensic science. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons Ltd.
34. Tentori, K., Crupi, V., Bonini, N. and Osherson, D. (2007) ‘Comparison of confirmation measures’, Cognition, 103: 107-119.