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.
暂无分享,去创建一个
Peter Gill | Duncan Taylor | Tacha Hicks | Niels Morling | John M Butler | Ed Connolly | Leonor Gusmão | Bas Kokshoorn | Roland A H van Oorschot | Walther Parson | Mechthild Prinz | Peter M Schneider | Titia Sijen | Duncan A. Taylor | J. Butler | W. Parson | N. Morling | T. Sijen | L. Gusmão | R. V. van Oorschot | P. Schneider | T. Hicks | P. Gill | M. Prinz | B. Kokshoorn | Edward Connolly
[1] D J Balding,et al. Evaluating DNA profile evidence when the suspect is identified through a database search. , 1996, Journal of forensic sciences.
[2] Duncan Taylor,et al. The 'factor of two' issue in mixed DNA profiles. , 2014, Journal of theoretical biology.
[3] Charles E H Berger,et al. A more straightforward derivation of the LR for a database search. , 2015, Forensic science international. Genetics.
[4] W. Pflug,et al. The German Stain Commission: recommendations for the interpretation of mixed stains , 2008, International Journal of Legal Medicine.
[5] Peter Gill,et al. Genotyping and interpretation of STR-DNA: Low-template, mixtures and database matches-Twenty years of research and development. , 2015, Forensic science international. Genetics.
[6] Niels Morling,et al. Performance of two 17 locus forensic identification STR kits-Applied Biosystems's AmpFℓSTR® NGMSElect™ and Promega's PowerPlex® ESI17 kits. , 2012, Forensic science international. Genetics.
[7] W. Thompson,et al. Lay understanding of forensic statistics: Evaluation of random match probabilities, likelihood ratios, and verbal equivalents. , 2015, Law and human behavior.
[8] David J. Balding,et al. Statistical Evaluation of Forensic DNA Profile Evidence , 2014 .
[9] Roberto Puch-Solis,et al. Evidential evaluation of DNA profiles using a discrete statistical model implemented in the DNA LiRa software. , 2014, Forensic science international. Genetics.
[10] Jo-Anne Bright,et al. Modelling heterozygote balance in forensic DNA profiles. , 2012, Forensic science international. Genetics.
[11] P Gill,et al. DNA commission of the International Society of Forensic Genetics: Recommendations on the evaluation of STR typing results that may include drop-out and/or drop-in using probabilistic methods. , 2012, Forensic science international. Genetics.
[12] Hinda Haned,et al. Complex DNA mixture analysis in a forensic context: evaluating the probative value using a likelihood ratio model. , 2015, Forensic science international. Genetics.
[13] Colin Aitken,et al. Data Analysis in Forensic Science: A Bayesian Decision Perspective , 2010 .
[14] David J Balding,et al. How convincing is a matching Y-chromosome profile? , 2017, bioRxiv.
[15] I. Evett,et al. A hierarchy of propositions: deciding which level to address in casework , 1998 .
[16] P Gill,et al. A new methodological framework to interpret complex DNA profiles using likelihood ratios. , 2013, Forensic science international. Genetics.
[17] Øyvind Bleka,et al. A comparative study of qualitative and quantitative models used to interpret complex STR DNA profiles. , 2016, Forensic science international. Genetics.
[18] James Curran,et al. Population-specific FST values for forensic STR markers: A worldwide survey. , 2016, Forensic science international. Genetics.
[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] D. Balding. Weight-of-Evidence for Forensic DNA Profiles , 2005 .
[21] D J Balding,et al. DNA profile match probability calculation: how to allow for population stratification, relatedness, database selection and single bands. , 1994, Forensic science international.
[22] J Buckleton,et al. The calculation of DNA match probabilities in mixed race populations. , 2000, Science & justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society.
[23] Ian W. Evett,et al. Avoiding the transposed conditional , 1995 .
[24] Ian W. Evett,et al. Who is “random man”? , 1991 .
[25] Ian W. Evett,et al. Establishing the evidential value of a small quantity of material found at a crime scene , 1993 .
[26] Øyvind Bleka,et al. EuroForMix: An open source software based on a continuous model to evaluate STR DNA profiles from a mixture of contributors with artefacts. , 2016, Forensic science international. Genetics.
[27] Peter Gill. A response to "About the number of Contributors to a forensic sample". , 2017, Forensic science international. Genetics.
[28] Peter Gill,et al. Towards understanding the effect of uncertainty in the number of contributors to DNA stains. , 2007, Forensic science international. Genetics.
[29] Peter Gill,et al. Misleading DNA Evidence: Reasons for Miscarriages of Justice , 2014 .
[30] Peter Gill,et al. A comparison of adjustment methods to test the robustness of an STR DNA database comprised of 24 European populations. , 2003, Forensic science international.
[31] I. Evett,et al. The nature of forensic science opinion--a possible framework to guide thinking and practice in investigations and in court proceedings. , 2006, Science & justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society.
[32] Christophe Champod,et al. Evaluating forensic biology results given source level propositions. , 2016, Forensic science international. Genetics.
[33] Franco Taroni,et al. How the probability of a false positive affects the value of DNA evidence. , 2003, Journal of forensic sciences.
[34] A D Kloosterman,et al. Objective data on DNA success rates can aid the selection process of crime samples for analysis by rapid mobile DNA technologies. , 2016, Forensic science international.
[35] Steffen L. Lauritzen,et al. Computational aspects of DNA mixture analysis , 2013, Statistics and Computing.
[36] P Gill,et al. Does an English appeal court ruling increase the risks of miscarriages of justice when complex DNA profiles are searched against the national DNA database? , 2014, Forensic science international. Genetics.
[37] Bruce Budowle,et al. Mixture Interpretation: Defining the Relevant Features for Guidelines for the Assessment of Mixed DNA Profiles in Forensic Casework * , 2009, Journal of forensic sciences.
[38] J Buckleton,et al. An investigation of the rigor of interpretation rules for STRs derived from less than 100 pg of DNA. , 2000, Forensic science international.
[39] 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.
[40] J A Lambert,et al. A model for case assessment and interpretation. , 1998, Science & justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society.
[41] Bas Kokshoorn,et al. Cell type determination and association with the DNA donor. , 2016, Forensic science international. Genetics.
[42] Duncan Taylor,et al. Helping formulate propositions in forensic DNA analysis. , 2014, Science & justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society.
[43] Duncan Taylor,et al. Testing likelihood ratios produced from complex DNA profiles. , 2015, Forensic science international. Genetics.
[44] A Stockmarr,et al. Likelihood Ratios for Evaluating DNA Evidence When the Suspect is Found Through a Database Search , 1999, Biometrics.
[45] W R Mayr,et al. DNA commission of the International Society of Forensic Genetics: Recommendations on the interpretation of mixtures. , 2006, Forensic science international.
[46] J. Mortera,et al. Analysis of forensic DNA mixtures with artefacts , 2013, 1302.4404.
[47] Duncan Taylor,et al. Interpreting forensic DNA profiling evidence without specifying the number of contributors. , 2014, Forensic science international. Genetics.
[48] Norah Rudin,et al. Calculating the Weight of Evidence in Low‐Template Forensic DNA Casework , 2013, Journal of forensic sciences.
[49] A. Kloosterman,et al. DNA in the Criminal Justice System: The DNA Success Story in Perspective , , 2015, Journal of forensic sciences.
[50] Peter Gill,et al. A comparison of stochastic variation in mixed and unmixed casework and synthetic samples. , 2012, Forensic science international. Genetics.
[51] Thore Egeland,et al. About the number of contributors to a forensic sample. , 2016, Forensic science international. Genetics.
[52] G. Box. Science and Statistics , 1976 .
[53] Charles H Brenner. Fairness in evaluating DNA mixtures. , 2017, Forensic science international. Genetics.
[54] R. Meester,et al. The Evidential Value in the DNA Database Search Controversy and the Two‐Stain Problem , 2003, Biometrics.
[55] Franco Taroni,et al. Statistics and the Evaluation of Evidence for Forensic Scientists , 2004 .
[56] Susan Pope,et al. Is it to the advantage of a defendant to infer a greater number of contributors to a questioned sample than is necessary to explain the observed DNA profile? , 2014, Science & justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society.
[57] J. Buckleton,et al. Forensic DNA Evidence Interpretation , 2004 .
[58] I. Evett,et al. Interpreting DNA Evidence: Statistical Genetics for Forensic Scientists , 1998 .
[59] 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.
[60] Chulyoung Kim,et al. Adversarial and Inquisitorial Procedures with Information Acquisition , 2014 .
[61] Hinda Haned,et al. Consensus and pool profiles to assist in the analysis and interpretation of complex low template DNA mixtures , 2011, International Journal of Legal Medicine.
[62] Jonathan Whitaker,et al. Interpreting small quantities of DNA: the hierarchy of propositions and the use of Bayesian networks. , 2002, Journal of forensic sciences.
[63] Jo-Anne Bright,et al. Determination of the variables affecting mixed MiniFiler™ DNA profiles. , 2011, Forensic science international. Genetics.
[64] William C. Thompson,et al. Using graphical probability analysis (Bayes Nets) to evaluate a conditional DNA inclusion , 2011 .
[65] A. Biedermann,et al. The importance of distinguishing information from evidence/observations when formulating propositions. , 2015, Science & justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society.
[66] M. Perlin,et al. Validating TrueAllele® DNA Mixture Interpretation * ,† , 2011, Journal of forensic sciences.
[67] J Buckleton,et al. DNA Commission of the International Society for Forensic Genetics: Recommendations on the validation of software programs performing biostatistical calculations for forensic genetics applications. , 2016, Forensic science international. Genetics.
[68] Ian W Evett. Another response to "About the number of contributors to a forensic sample". , 2017, Forensic science international. Genetics.
[69] Peter M Schneider,et al. Scientific standards for studies in forensic genetics. , 2007, Forensic science international.
[70] Christina Widén,et al. Comments on "The database search problem" with respect to a recent publication in Forensic Science International. , 2012, Forensic science international.
[71] D. Balding. Evaluation of mixed-source, low-template DNA profiles in forensic science , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
[72] Duncan Taylor,et al. The interpretation of single source and mixed DNA profiles. , 2013, Forensic science international. Genetics.
[73] C Champod,et al. Finding the way forward for forensic science in the US-A commentary on the PCAST report. , 2017, Forensic science international.
[74] Niels Morling,et al. Recommendations of the DNA Commission of the International Society for Forensic Genetics (ISFG) on quality control of autosomal Short Tandem Repeat allele frequency databasing (STRidER). , 2016, Forensic science international. Genetics.
[75] John Buckleton,et al. A universal strategy to interpret DNA profiles that does not require a definition of low-copy-number. , 2010, Forensic science international. Genetics.