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

Author： Biedermann A. Taroni F. Champod C.

ISSN： 1470-8396

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

Disclaimer: Any content in publications that violate the sovereignty, the constitution or regulations of the PRC is not accepted or approved by CNPIEC.

Previous Menu Next

Abstract

Related content

Discussion paper: The R v T controversy: forensic evidence, law and logic

By Hamer David

Law, Probability and Risk, Vol. 11, Iss. 4, 2012-12 ,pp. : 331-345

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

Traditional conclusions in footwear examinations versus the use of the Bayesian approach and likelihood ratio: a review of a recent UK appellate court decision

By Bodziak William J.

Law, Probability and Risk, Vol. 11, Iss. 4, 2012-12 ,pp. : 279-287

Oxford University Press

Access to resources Recommend Favorite

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

The likelihood ratio as value of evidencemore than a question of numbers

By Nordgaard Anders Rasmusson Birgitta

Law, Probability and Risk, Vol. 11, Iss. 4, 2012-12 ,pp. : 303-315

Oxford University Press

Access to resources Recommend Favorite