161 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28715673)
1. Activity level DNA evidence evaluation: On propositions addressing the actor or the activity.
Kokshoorn B; Blankers BJ; de Zoete J; Berger CEH
Forensic Sci Int; 2017 Sep; 278():115-124. PubMed ID: 28715673
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. DNA commission of the International society for forensic genetics: Assessing the value of forensic biological evidence - Guidelines highlighting the importance of propositions. Part II: Evaluation of biological traces considering activity level propositions.
Gill P; Hicks T; Butler JM; Connolly E; Gusmão L; Kokshoorn B; Morling N; van Oorschot RAH; Parson W; Prinz M; Schneider PM; Sijen T; Taylor D
Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2020 Jan; 44():102186. PubMed ID: 31677444
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. A Practical Guide for the Formulation of Propositions in the Bayesian Approach to DNA Evidence Interpretation in an Adversarial Environment.
Gittelson S; Kalafut T; Myers S; Taylor D; Hicks T; Taroni F; Evett IW; Bright JA; Buckleton J
J Forensic Sci; 2016 Jan; 61(1):186-95. PubMed ID: 26248867
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Direct and Secondary Transfer of Touch DNA on a Credit Card: Evidence Evaluation Given Activity Level Propositions and Application of Bayesian Networks.
Onofri M; Altomare C; Severini S; Tommolini F; Lancia M; Carlini L; Gambelunghe C; Carnevali E
Genes (Basel); 2023 Apr; 14(5):. PubMed ID: 37239356
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. The use of Bayesian Networks and simulation methods to identify the variables impacting the value of evidence assessed under activity level propositions in stabbing cases.
Samie L; Champod C; Taylor D; Taroni F
Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2020 Sep; 48():102334. PubMed ID: 32563838
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. DNA commission of the International society for forensic genetics: Assessing the value of forensic biological evidence - Guidelines highlighting the importance of propositions: Part I: evaluation of DNA profiling comparisons given (sub-) source propositions.
Gill P; Hicks T; Butler JM; Connolly E; Gusmão L; Kokshoorn B; Morling N; van Oorschot RAH; Parson W; Prinz M; Schneider PM; Sijen T; Taylor D
Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2018 Sep; 36():189-202. PubMed ID: 30041098
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Evaluating forensic biology results given source level propositions.
Taylor D; Abarno D; Hicks T; Champod C
Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2016 Mar; 21():54-67. PubMed ID: 26720813
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Evaluation of forensic genetics findings given activity level propositions: A review.
Taylor D; Kokshoorn B; Biedermann A
Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2018 Sep; 36():34-49. PubMed ID: 29929059
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Using case specific experiments to evaluate fingermarks on knives given activity level propositions.
de Ronde A; Kokshoorn B; de Puit M; de Poot CJ
Forensic Sci Int; 2021 Mar; 320():110710. PubMed ID: 33561790
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Bayesian networks and dissonant items of evidence: A case study.
De March I; Taroni F
Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2020 Jan; 44():102172. PubMed ID: 31629186
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. When evaluating DNA evidence within a likelihood ratio framework, should the propositions be exhaustive?
Buckleton J; Taylor D; Bright JA; Hicks T; Curran J
Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2021 Jan; 50():102406. PubMed ID: 33142191
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Transfer and persistence of non-self DNA on hands over time: Using empirical data to evaluate DNA evidence given activity level propositions.
Szkuta B; Ballantyne KN; Kokshoorn B; van Oorschot RAH
Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2018 Mar; 33():84-97. PubMed ID: 29216581
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Comparing multiple POI to DNA mixtures.
Hicks T; Kerr Z; Pugh S; Bright JA; Curran J; Taylor D; Buckleton J
Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2021 May; 52():102481. PubMed ID: 33607394
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. A template for constructing Bayesian networks in forensic biology cases when considering activity level propositions.
Taylor D; Biedermann A; Hicks T; Champod C
Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2018 Mar; 33():136-146. PubMed ID: 29275089
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. The importance of considering common sources of unknown DNA when evaluating findings given activity level propositions.
Taylor D; Volgin L; Kokshoorn B; Champod C
Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2021 Jul; 53():102518. PubMed ID: 33865097
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Interpreting small quantities of DNA: the hierarchy of propositions and the use of Bayesian networks.
Evett IW; Gill PD; Jackson G; Whitaker J; Champod C
J Forensic Sci; 2002 May; 47(3):520-30. PubMed ID: 12051330
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Use of Bayesian networks in forensic soil casework.
Uitdehaag SCA; Donders TH; Kuiper I; Wagner-Cremer F; Sjerps MJ
Sci Justice; 2022 Mar; 62(2):229-238. PubMed ID: 35277237
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Transfer, persistence and recovery of DNA and mRNA vaginal mucosa markers after intimate and social contact with Bayesian network analysis for activity level reporting.
Johannessen H; Gill P; Shanthan G; Fonneløp AE
Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2022 Sep; 60():102750. PubMed ID: 35914368
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Indirect DNA Transfer and Forensic Implications: A Literature Review.
Sessa F; Pomara C; Esposito M; Grassi P; Cocimano G; Salerno M
Genes (Basel); 2023 Nov; 14(12):. PubMed ID: 38136975
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Structuring cases into propositions, assumptions, and undisputed case information.
Taylor D; Kokshoorn B; Hicks T
Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2020 Jan; 44():102199. PubMed ID: 31756630
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
