https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6370-9189
References
- Arkes, H. R., and Koehler, J. J. (2022), “Inconclusive Conclusions in Forensic Science: rejoinders to Scurich, Morrison, Sinha and Gutierrez,” Law, Probability and Risk, 21, 175–177. DOI: 10.1093/lpr/mgad002.
- Biedermann, A., Budowle, B., and Champod, C. (2022), “Forensic Feature-Comparison as Applied to Firearms Examination: Evidential Value of Findings and Expert Performance Characteristics,” Declaration submitted in US v Kaevon Sutton (2018 CF1 009709).
- Biedermann, A., and Kotsoglou, K. N. (2021), “Forensic Science and the Principle of Excluded Middle: “Inconclusive” Decisions and the Structure of Error Rate Studies,” Forensic Science International. Synergy, 3, 100147. DOI: 10.1016/j.fsisyn.2021.100147.
- Biedermann, A., and Kotsoglou, K. N. (2023), “Commentary on “Three-Way ROCs for Forensic Decision Making” by Nicholas Scurich and Richard S. John in: Statistics and Public Policy,” Statistics and Public Policy, 1–4. DOI: 10.1080/2330443X.2023.2288166.
- Law, E. F., and Morris, K. B. (2021), “Evaluating Firearm Examiner Conclusion Variability Using Cartridge Case Reproductions,” Journal of Forensic Sciences, 66, 1704–1720. DOI: 10.1111/1556-4029.14758.
- Scurich, N. (2022), “Inconclusives in Firearm Error Rate Studies Are Not ‘a Pass,” Law, Probability and Risk, 21, 123–127. DOI: 10.1093/lpr/mgac011.
- Scurich, N., and John, R. S. (2023), “Three-Way ROCs for Forensic Decision Making,” Statistics and Public Policy, 10, 2239306. DOI: 10.1080/2330443X.2023.2239306.