References
- Edmond G, San Roque M. Quasi-justice: ad hoc expertise and identification evidence. Crim Law J. 2009;33:8–33.
- Gleeson SC, J. The judge, the advocate and the expert witness – revisiting the seminal views of Sir Owen Dixon in the modern context. Aust J Forensic Sci. 2016;48:1–15.
- Dror IE. Human expert performance in forensic decision making: seven different sources of bias. Aust J Forensic Sci. 2017;49:1–7.
- Thompson WC. What role should investigative facts play in the evaluation of scientific evidence? Aust J Forensic Sci. 2011;43:123–134.
- Edmond G, Found B, Martire K, Ballantyne K, Hamer D, Searston R, Thompson M, Cunliffe E, Kemp R, San Roque M, et al. Model forensic science. Aust J Forensic Sci. 2016;48:1.
- Presidents’ Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). Forensic science in criminal courts: ensuring scientific validity of feature-comparison methods. 2016.
- Butera v DPP (1987) 164 CLR 180.
- Ladefoged P, Disner SF. Vowels and consonants: an introduction to the sounds of language. 3rd ed. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell; 2012.
- Fraser H. How interpretation of indistinct covert recordings can lead to wrongful conviction: a case study and recommendations for reform. In: Levy R, et al., editors. New directions for law in Australia: Essays in contemporary law reform. Canberra: ANU Press; in press. p. 138–145.
- Edmond G, Martire KA, Kemp RI. How to cross-examine forensic scientists: a guide for lawyers. Aust Bar Rev. 2014;39:175–197.
- Fraser H, Stevenson B. The power and persistence of contextual priming: more risks in using police transcripts to aid jurors' perception of poor quality covert recordings. Int J Evid Proof. 2014;18:205–229.