When evaluating DNA evidence within a likelihood ratio framework, should the propositions be exhaustive?
暂无分享,去创建一个
James Curran | Duncan Taylor | Jo-Anne Bright | John Buckleton | Tacha Hicks | Duncan A. Taylor | J. Curran | J. Buckleton | T. Hicks | J. Bright
[1] W R Mayr,et al. DNA commission of the International Society of Forensic Genetics: Recommendations on the interpretation of mixtures. , 2006, Forensic science international.
[2] William C. Thompson,et al. Using graphical probability analysis (Bayes Nets) to evaluate a conditional DNA inclusion , 2011 .
[3] J M Curran,et al. Interpreting DNA mixtures in structured populations. , 1999, Journal of forensic sciences.
[4] I W Evett. What is the probability that this blood came from that person? A meaningful question? , 1983, Journal - Forensic Science Society.
[5] J Buckleton,et al. An illustration of the effect of various sources of uncertainty on DNA likelihood ratio calculations. , 2014, Forensic science international. Genetics.
[6] Colin Aitken,et al. On the use of the likelihood ratio for forensic evaluation: response to Fenton et al. , 2014, Science & justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society.
[7] Bruce Budowle,et al. NIST interlaboratory studies involving DNA mixtures (MIX13): A modern analysis. , 2018, Forensic science international. Genetics.
[8] I. Evett,et al. Interpreting DNA Evidence: Statistical Genetics for Forensic Scientists , 1998 .
[9] 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.
[10] John M Butler,et al. NIST interlaboratory studies involving DNA mixtures (MIX05 and MIX13): Variation observed and lessons learned. , 2018, Forensic science international. Genetics.
[11] James Curran,et al. Searching mixed DNA profiles directly against profile databases. , 2014, Forensic science international. Genetics.
[12] Katarina Domijan,et al. The Persistence of Sperm and the Development of Time Since Intercourse (TSI) Guidelines in Sexual Assault Cases at Forensic Science Ireland, Dublin, Ireland , 2017, Journal of forensic sciences.
[13] I. Evett,et al. A hierarchy of propositions: deciding which level to address in casework , 1998 .
[14] J A Lambert,et al. A model for case assessment and interpretation. , 1998, Science & justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society.
[15] K Slooten,et al. Contributors are a nuisance (parameter) for DNA mixture evidence evaluation. , 2018, Forensic science international. Genetics.
[16] Ian W. Evett,et al. On meaningful questions: a two-trace transfer problem , 1987 .
[17] Ian W. Evett,et al. Some aspects of the Bayesian approach to evidence evaluation , 1989 .
[18] Simone Gittelson,et al. A Practical Guide for the Formulation of Propositions in the Bayesian Approach to DNA Evidence Interpretation in an Adversarial Environment , 2016, Journal of forensic sciences.
[19] 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.
[20] Jo-Anne Bright,et al. The effect of the uncertainty in the number of contributors to mixed DNA profiles on profile interpretation. , 2014, Forensic science international. Genetics.
[21] Jo-Anne Bright,et al. The effect of varying the number of contributors in the prosecution and alternate propositions. , 2019, Forensic science international. Genetics.
[22] D. Balding. Weight-of-Evidence for Forensic DNA Profiles , 2005 .
[23] Jo-Anne Bright,et al. Internal validation of STRmix™ for the interpretation of single source and mixed DNA profiles. , 2017, Forensic science international. Genetics.
[24] L. J. Savage,et al. Probability and the weighing of evidence , 1951 .
[25] R. Royall. Statistical Evidence: A Likelihood Paradigm , 1997 .
[26] John Buckleton,et al. Relatedness and DNA: are we taking it seriously enough? , 2005, Forensic science international.
[27] Bas Kokshoorn,et al. Activity level DNA evidence evaluation: On propositions addressing the actor or the activity. , 2017, Forensic science international.
[28] Samuel Lindsey,et al. The Random Match Probability (RMP) in DNA Evidence: Irrelevant and Prejudicial? , 1995 .
[29] B. Weir,et al. Interpreting DNA mixtures. , 1997, Journal of forensic sciences.
[30] Amke Caliebe. Two or three contributors of DNA mixtures? – Some practical considerations , 2019 .
[31] A. Biedermann,et al. The importance of distinguishing information from evidence/observations when formulating propositions. , 2015, Science & justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society.
[32] Peter Gill,et al. DNA commission of the International society for forensic genetics: Assessing the value of forensic biological evidence - Guidelines highlighting the importance of propositions: Part I: evaluation of DNA profiling comparisons given (sub-) source propositions. , 2018, Forensic science international. Genetics.
[33] Duncan Taylor,et al. Helping formulate propositions in forensic DNA analysis. , 2014, Science & justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society.
[34] Colin Aitken,et al. Dismissal of the illusion of uncertainty in the assessment of a likelihood ratio , 2016 .