References
- Cook R, Evett IW, Jackson G, Jones PJ, Lambert JA. A hierarchy of propositions: deciding which level to address in casework. Sci Justice. 1998;38:231–239. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S1355-0306(98)72117-3.
- Evett IW, Gill PD, Jackson G, Whitaker J, Champod C. Interpreting small quantities of DNA: the hierarchy of propositions and the use of Bayesian networks. J Forensic Sci. 2002;47:520–530.
- Taylor D, Abarno D, Hicks T, Champod C. Evaluating forensic biology results given source level propositions. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2016;21:54–67. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2015.11.009.
- Cook R, Evett IW, Jackson G, Jones PJ, Lambert JA. A model for case assessment and interpretation. Sci Justice. 1998;38:151–156. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S1355-0306(98)72099-4.
- Kokshoorn B, Blankers BJ, de Zoete J, Berger CEH. Activity level DNA evidence evaluation: on propositions addressing the actor or the activity. Forensic Sci Int. 2017;278:115–124. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2017.06.029.
- Taylor D, Biedermann A, Hicks T, Champod C. A template for constructing Bayesian networks in forensic biology cases when considering activity level propositions. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2018;33:136–146. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2017.12.006.
- Pearl J. Probabilistic reasoning in intelligent systems. San Mateo (CA): Morgan Kaufmann; 1988.
- Gaag LC, Renooij S. Analysing sensitivity data from probabilistic networks. In: UAI ’01: Proceedings of the 17th Conference in Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc; 2001. p. 530–537.
- Tan J, Lee JY, Lee LYC, Aw ZQ, Chew MH, Ishak NIB, Lee YS, Mugni MA, Syn CKC. Shedder status: does it really exist? Forensic Sci Int. 2019;7:360–362.
- Samie L, Hicks T, Castella V, Taroni F. Stabbing simulations and DNA transfer. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2016;22:73–80. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2016.02.001.
- Biedermann A, Taroni F, Bozza S. Implementing statistical learning methods through Bayesian networks. Part 1: a guide to Bayesian parameter estimation using forensic science data. Forensic Sci Int. 2009;193:63–71. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2009.09.007.
- Biedermann A, Taroni F. Bayesian networks and probabilistic reasoning about scientific evidence when there is a lack of data. Forensic Sci Int. 2006;157(2–3):163–167. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2005.09.008.
- Taylor D, Hicks T, Champod C. Using sensitivity analyses in Bayesian networks to highlight the impact of data paucity and direct future analyses: a contribution to the debate on measuring and reporting the precision of likelihood ratios. Sci Justice. 2016;56(5):402–410. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2016.06.010.
- Goray M, Fowler S, Szkuta B, van Oorschot RAH. Shedder status - an analysis of self and non-self DNA in multiple handprints deposited by the same individuals over time. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2016;23:190–196. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2016.05.005.