Related content

Reply to Hamer: The R v T controversy: forensic evidence, law and logic

By Biedermann A.   Taroni F.   Champod C.  

Law, Probability and Risk, Vol. 11, Iss. 4, 2012-12 ,pp. : 361-362

Oxford University Press

Access to resources Recommend Favorite

Discussion paper: Hard cases make bad lawreactions to R v T

By Thompson William C.  

Law, Probability and Risk, Vol. 11, Iss. 4, 2012-12 ,pp. : 347-359

Oxford University Press

Access to resources Recommend Favorite

Sharing homes: a law commission discussion paper with a difference

By McDonald Iain  

Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, Vol. 25, Iss. 1, 2003-02 ,pp. : 83-96

Routledge Ltd

Access to resources Recommend Favorite

How to assign a likelihood ratio in a footwear mark case: an analysis and discussion in the light of R v T

By Biedermann A.   Taroni F.   Champod C.  

Law, Probability and Risk, Vol. 11, Iss. 4, 2012-12 ,pp. : 259-277

Oxford University Press

Access to resources Recommend Favorite

Discussion paper: A just measure of probability

By Ligertwood Andrew   Edmond Gary  

Law, Probability and Risk, Vol. 11, Iss. 4, 2012-12 ,pp. : 365-369

Oxford University Press

Access to resources Recommend Favorite