ENFSI guIdElINE For EvaluatIvE rEportINg IN ForENSIc ScIENcE Strengthening the Evaluation of Forensic Results across Europe ( STEOFRAE

[1]  I. Evett,et al.  A hierarchy of propositions: deciding which level to address in casework , 1998 .

[2]  J A Lambert,et al.  A model for case assessment and interpretation. , 1998, Science & justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society.

[3]  I. Evett,et al.  Interpreting DNA Evidence: Statistical Genetics for Forensic Scientists , 1998 .

[4]  Ian W. Evett,et al.  A Bayesian approach to interpreting footwear marks in forensic casework , 1998 .

[5]  J A Lambert,et al.  The impact of the principles of evidence interpretation on the structure and content of statements. , 2000, Science & justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society.

[6]  Tacha Hicks,et al.  Forensic Interpretation of Glass Evidence , 2000 .

[7]  I. Evett,et al.  More on the hierarchy of propositions: exploring the distinction between explanations and propositions. , 2000, Science & justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society.

[8]  C M Triggs,et al.  Glass on clothing and shoes of members of the general population and people suspected of breaking crimes. , 2001, Science & justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society.

[9]  C. Aitken,et al.  De Finetti's subjectivism, the assessment of probabilities and the evaluation of evidence: a commentary for forensic scientists , 2001 .

[10]  Jonathan Whitaker,et al.  Interpreting small quantities of DNA: the hierarchy of propositions and the use of Bayesian networks. , 2002, Journal of forensic sciences.

[11]  Franco Taroni,et al.  How the probability of a false positive affects the value of DNA evidence. , 2003, Journal of forensic sciences.

[12]  Franco Taroni,et al.  Statistics and the Evaluation of Evidence for Forensic Scientists , 2004 .

[13]  Jeremy E. Oakley,et al.  Uncertain Judgements: Eliciting Experts' Probabilities , 2006 .

[14]  F Taroni,et al.  Bayesian networks and probabilistic reasoning about scientific evidence when there is a lack of data. , 2006, Forensic science international.

[15]  Graham Jackson,et al.  Case Assessment and Interpretation , 2009 .

[16]  C. Aitken,et al.  Fundamentals of probability and statistical evidence in criminal proceedings , 2010 .

[17]  Roland A H van Oorschot,et al.  Secondary DNA transfer of biological substances under varying test conditions. , 2010, Forensic science international. Genetics.

[18]  John Buckleton,et al.  The interpretation of shoeprint comparison class correspondences. , 2012, Science & justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society.

[19]  Ricky Ansell,et al.  Scale of conclusions for the value of evidence , 2012 .

[20]  Kaye N. Ballantyne,et al.  Following the transfer of DNA: How far can it go? , 2013 .

[21]  J. Curran,et al.  Geographical variation of shoeprint comparison class correspondences. , 2014, Science & justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society.