Literature DB >> 10795422

More on the hierarchy of propositions: exploring the distinction between explanations and propositions.

I W Evett, G Jackson, J A Lambert.   

Abstract

Interpretation of the weight of scientific evidence depends upon the framing of at least two competing propositions to weigh against each other. It is the stage of framing propositions that is the most difficult aspect of evidence interpretation. The logical structure for case assessment and interpretation has been described by the authors in three previous papers [Cook R, et al. A model for case assessment and interpretation. Science & Justice 1998; 38: 151-156. Cook R, et al. A hierarchy of propositions: deciding which level to address in casework. Science & Justice 1998; 38: 231-239. Cook R, et al. Case pre-assessment and review in a two-way transfer case. Science & Justice 1999; 39: 103-111]. This paper considers the framing of propositions in greater detail, in particular the intermediate stage of exploring less formal explanations. All of the discussion is based on experiences encountered in workshops with caseworking forensic scientists.

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10795422     DOI: 10.1016/S1355-0306(00)71926-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Sci Justice        ISSN: 1355-0306            Impact factor:   2.124


  12 in total

1.  A response to "Likelihood ratio as weight of evidence: A closer look" by Lund and Iyer.

Authors:  Simone Gittelson; Charles E H Berger; Graham Jackson; Ian W Evett; Christophe Champod; Bernard Robertson; James M Curran; Duncan Taylor; Bruce S Weir; Michael D Coble; John S Buckleton
Journal:  Forensic Sci Int       Date:  2018-05-22       Impact factor: 2.395

Review 2.  Science in the court: pitfalls, challenges and solutions.

Authors:  Éadaoin O'Brien; Niamh Nic Daeid; Sue Black
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2015-08-05       Impact factor: 6.237

Review 3.  A Logical Framework for Forensic DNA Interpretation.

Authors:  Tacha Hicks; John Buckleton; Vincent Castella; Ian Evett; Graham Jackson
Journal:  Genes (Basel)       Date:  2022-05-27       Impact factor: 4.141

4.  The impact of commercialization on the evaluation of DNA evidence.

Authors:  Graham Jackson
Journal:  Front Genet       Date:  2013-11-06       Impact factor: 4.599

Review 5.  Evaluation of Forensic DNA Traces When Propositions of Interest Relate to Activities: Analysis and Discussion of Recurrent Concerns.

Authors:  Alex Biedermann; Christophe Champod; Graham Jackson; Peter Gill; Duncan Taylor; John Butler; Niels Morling; Tacha Hicks; Joelle Vuille; Franco Taroni
Journal:  Front Genet       Date:  2016-12-12       Impact factor: 4.599

6.  Digital evidence exceptionalism? A review and discussion of conceptual hurdles in digital evidence transformation.

Authors:  Alex Biedermann; Kyriakos N Kotsoglou
Journal:  Forensic Sci Int       Date:  2020-08-28       Impact factor: 2.395

Review 7.  A Review of Probabilistic Genotyping Systems: EuroForMix, DNAStatistX and STRmix™.

Authors:  Peter Gill; Corina Benschop; John Buckleton; Øyvind Bleka; Duncan Taylor
Journal:  Genes (Basel)       Date:  2021-09-30       Impact factor: 4.096

Review 8.  On the Identification of Body Fluids and Tissues: A Crucial Link in the Investigation and Solution of Crime.

Authors:  Titia Sijen; SallyAnn Harbison
Journal:  Genes (Basel)       Date:  2021-10-28       Impact factor: 4.096

Review 9.  Bayesian Hierarchical Random Effects Models in Forensic Science.

Authors:  Colin G G Aitken
Journal:  Front Genet       Date:  2018-04-16       Impact factor: 4.599

10.  Interpretation of DNA data within the context of UK forensic science - evaluation.

Authors:  Roberto Puch-Solis; Susan Pope
Journal:  Emerg Top Life Sci       Date:  2021-09-24
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.