Interpreting Evidence: Evaluating Forensic Science in the Courtroom

Voorkant
John Wiley & Sons, 28 jul 2016 - 224 pagina's

This book explains the correct logical approach to analysis of forensic scientific evidence. The focus is on general methods of analysis applicable to all forms of evidence. It starts by explaining the general principles and then applies them to issues in DNA and other important forms of scientific evidence as examples. Like the first edition, the book analyses real legal cases and judgments rather than hypothetical examples and shows how the problems perceived in those cases would have been solved by a correct logical approach. The book is written to be understood both by forensic scientists preparing their evidence and by lawyers and judges who have to deal with it. The analysis is tied back both to basic scientific principles and to the principles of the law of evidence. This book will also be essential reading for law students taking evidence or forensic science papers and science students studying the application of their scientific specialisation to forensic questions.

 

Geselecteerde pagina's

Inhoudsopgave

Chapter 1 Introduction
1
Chapter 2 Interpreting Scientific Evidence
9
Chapter 3 The Alternative Hypothesis
29
Chapter 4 What Questions Can the Expert Deal With?
47
Chapter 5 Explaining the Strength of Evidence
55
Chapter 6 The Case as a Whole
69
Chapter 7 Forensic Science Methodology
85
Chapter 8 Assigning Likelihood Ratios
107
Chapter 9 Errors of Thinking
129
Chapter 10 Frequentist Statistics and Database Matching
147
Chapter 11 Implications for the Legal System
161
Chapter 12 Conclusion
179
Appendix
183
Index
193
EULA
199
Copyright

Overige edities - Alles bekijken

Interpreting Evidence: Evaluating Forensic Science in the Courtroom
Bernard Robertson,G. A. Vignaux,Charles E. H. Berger
Gedeeltelijke weergave - 2016
Interpreting Evidence: Evaluating Forensic Science in the Courtroom
Bernard Robertson,G. A. Vignaux,Charles E. H. Berger
Gedeeltelijke weergave - 2016
Interpreting Evidence: Evaluating Forensic Science in the Courtroom
Bernard Robertson,G. A. Vignaux,Charles E. H. Berger
Gedeeltelijke weergave - 2016

Veelvoorkomende woorden en zinsdelen

2016 John Wiley accused Aitken CGG alleles alternative hypothesis analysis assign Bayes Bayesian Bayesian Networks Bernard Robertson Bertillonage Buckleton calibration Chapter Charles E.H. Berger Chedzey comparison scores consider court Courtroom Criminal database defence Dennis Lindley different-source comparisons discussed DNA evidence DNA profile efficient statistical error Evaluating Forensic Science Evett IW evidential evidential value evidential weight examination example expert evidence expert witness fingermark fingerprint Forensic Identification Forensic Science International forensic scientific evidence forensic scientists G.A. Vignaux give given glass handwriting Interpreting Evidence item of evidence jury Law Review lawyers likelihood ratio limit log LR logical match methods minutiae mt-DNA NZLR particular paternity Pengelly perpetrator person piece of evidence posterior odds prior odds prior probability probability density probative value problems proposition prosecution Published 2016 question refractive index relevant result same-source sample Science & Justice scientific witnesses Section shoe someone Tippett plot trace true Wiley & Sons

Over de auteur (2016)

Bernard Robertson, Barrister, Inner Temple and New Zealand
Bernard Robertson is a graduate of Oxford, of the LSE, and of the National Police Staff College, Bramshill as well as being a Barrister of the Inner Temple and of New Zealand. After ten years in the Metropolitan Police, Bernard emigrated to New Zealand and taught the law of evidence at undergraduate and postgraduate levels. He and Professor Vignaux have written numerous papers on Bayesian analysis of scientific evidence and of evidence and court decision making in general. He has also been editor of The New Zealand Law Journal and of The New Zealand Law Reports, ensuring that he has kept in touch with a wide range of legal issues, including civil litigation.

G. A.Vignaux, Emeritus Professor,?Victoria University, New Zealand
G A (Tony) Vignaux (retired) was a physicist and an Operations Research worker, and latterly a Professor of Operations Research at Victoria University. Prior to starting work on legal questions he published on the use of Bayesian methods in physics. With Bernard Robertson he has been invited to address conferences and has been consulted on several legal cases and by enquiries into miscarriage of justice. He has participated in teaching evidence and forensic science to law students at postgraduate level.

strongCharles Berger, Principal Scientist,?Netherlands Forensic Institute,?The NetherlandsCharles Berger is principal scientist at the Netherlands Forensic Institute (NFI), and professor of Criminalistics at Leiden University. He specializes in subjects such as evidence interpretation and forensic inference. At the NFI he is active in a number of areas such as education and research about which he publishes internationally. He also supports the NFI experts, advises the management and oversees scientific quality. He is involved in promoting logically correct reasoning and concluding, introducing more objective methods, and interpretation at the activity level. For such improvements it is essential to explain them as often and as well as possible to all the stakeholders in the justice system. It is an exciting challenge at the interfaces of the worlds of science, police, and law.

Bibliografische gegevens

TitelInterpreting Evidence: Evaluating Forensic Science in the Courtroom
AuteursBernard Robertson, G. A. Vignaux, Charles E. H. Berger
Editie2
UitgeverJohn Wiley & Sons, 2016
ISBN1118492463, 9781118492468
Lengte224 pagina's
  
Citatie exporterenBiBTeX EndNote RefMan