References

No references inside the corpus for this window.

Cited by

• 2016What should a forensic practitioner's likelihood ratio be?45 cited
• 2013When ‘neutral’ evidence still has probative value (with implications from the Barry George Case)43 cited
• 2011Avoiding probabilistic reasoning fallacies in legal practice using Bayesian networks35 cited
• 2013The Bayesian approach to forensic evidence: Evaluating, communicating, and distributing responsibility32 cited
• 2016Expert Testimony, Law and Epistemic Authority31 cited
• 2013The psychology of interpreting expert evaluative opinions28 cited
• 2012Discussion paper: Hard cases make bad law--reactions to R v T27 cited
• 2013Calculating and understanding the value of any type of match evidence when there are potential testing errors25 cited
• 2018A response to “Likelihood ratio as weight of evidence: A closer look” by Lund and Iyer20 cited
• 2014Liberties and constraints of the normative approach to evaluation and decision in forensic science: a discussion towards overcoming some common misconceptions19 cited
• 2017On the Bayesian approach to forensic age estimation of living individuals19 cited
• 2012How to assign a likelihood ratio in a footwear mark case: an analysis and discussion in the light of R v T18 cited
• 2016Using Bayesian networks to guide the assessment of new evidence in an appeal case