References
- Lund SP, Iyer H. Likelihood ratio as weight of forensic evidence: a closer look. J Res Natl Inst Stand Technol. 2017;122(27). DOI: 10.6028/jres.122.027
- Williams GA, Maskell PD. Embracing likelihood ratios and highlighting the principles of forensic interpretation. Forensic Sci Int Rep. 2021;3:
100209 . DOI: 10.1016/j.fsir.2021.100209 - Lucas G, director. Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith [film]. Lucasfilm Ltd.; 2005.
- Scientific Working Group for Forensic Document Examination. SWGDOC Standard Terminology for Expressing Conclusions of Forensic Document Examiners. SWGDOC; 2015 Jan.
- United States Department of Justice. Uniform Language for Testimony and Reports for the Forensic Document Examination Discipline. United States Department of Justice, Office of Legal Policy; 2021 July.
- Hicklin RA, Eisenhart L, Richetelli N, Miller MD, Belcastro P, Burkes TM, et al. Accuracy and reliability of forensic handwriting comparisons. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2022;119(32):
e2119944119 . DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2119944119 - Jackson G, Biedermann A. “Source” or “activity” what is the level of issue in a criminal trial? Significance. 2019;16(2):36–9. DOI: 10.1111/j.1740-9713.2019.01253.x
- Biedermann A, Bozza S, Taroni F. Analysing and exemplifying forensic conclusion criteria in terms of Bayesian decision theory. Sci Justice. 2018;58(2):159–65. DOI: 10.1016/j.scijus.2017.07.002
- Organization of Scientific Area Committees. Standard for the Expression of Conclusions in Forensic Document Examination; 2022.
- Meester R, Slooten K. Probability and forensic evidence: Theory, philosophy, and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2021. pp. 30–60. DOI: 10.1017/9781108596176
- De Koeijer JA, Sjerps MJ, Vergeer P, Berger CEH. Combining evidence in complex cases – a practical approach to interdisciplinary casework. Sci Justice. 2020;60(1):20–9. DOI: 10.1016/j.scijus.2019.09.001
- Rassin E, Arbiyah N, Boskovic I, Otgaar H, Merckelbach H. Likelihood ratios in psychological expert opinion, and their reception by professional judges. Int J Evid Proof. 2022;26(4):325–41. DOI: 10.1177/13657127221119545
- Fenton N, Neil M, Berger D. Bayes and the law. Annu Rev Stat Its Appl. 2016;3(1):51–77. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-statistics-041715-033428
- Shapiro DL, Mixon L, Jackson M, Shook J. Psychological expert witness testimony and judicial decision making trends. Int J Law Psychiatry. 2015;42–43:149–53. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijlp.2015.08.020
- Kruse C. The Bayesian approach to forensic evidence: Evaluating, communicating, and distributing responsibility. Soc Stud Sci. 2013;43(5):657–80. DOI: 10.1177/0306312712472572
- Greene E, Gordon N. Can the “hot tub” enhance jurors’ understanding and use of expert testimony? Wyo Law Rev. 2016;16(2):359–85. DOI: 10.59643/1942-9916.1366
- Perillo JT, Perillo AD, Despodova NM, Kovera MB. Testing the waters: an investigation of the impact of hot tubbing on experts from referral through testimony. Law Hum Behav. 2021;45(3):229–42. DOI: 10.1037/lhb0000446
- Prescott DE, Fadgen T. Adversarial systems and forensic experts in child custody: How about adding a hot tub? J Am Acad Matrim Lawyers. 2019;32(1):117–42.
- Marquis R, Biedermann A, Cadola L, Champod C, Gueissaz L, Massonnet G, et al. Discussion on how to implement a verbal scale in a forensic laboratory: benefits, pitfalls and suggestions to avoid misunderstandings. Sci Justice. 2016;56(5):364–70. DOI: 10.1016/j.scijus.2016.05.009
- Federal Courts Rules. SOR/98-106, s. 52.6 [Internet]. Justice Laws Website; 2010. Available from:
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-98-106/section-52.6.html - Civil Procedure Rules. Practice Direction 35, Experts and Assessors [Internet]; 2013. Available from:
https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part35/pd_part35 - Federal Court Rules 2011. (Cth), r 23.15 [Internet]; 2011. Available from:
https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2011L01551 - High Court Rules 2016. rr. 9.43–9.51 [Internet]; 2016. Available from:
https://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2016/0225/latest/DLM6951682.html - Schneps L, Colmez C. Math on trial: how numbers get used and abused in the courtroom. New York: Basic Books; 2013. p.
256 . - Koch SL.
Communicating Forensic Findings : Current Practices and Future Directions workshop proceedings . Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology (U.S.); 2025 Jan p. NIST IR 8510sup1. Report No.: NIST IR 8510sup1. DOI: 10.6028/NIST.IR.8510sup1 - Nordgaard A, Rasmusson B. The likelihood ratio as value of evidence—more than a question of numbers. Law Probab Risk. 2012;11(4):303–15. DOI: 10.1093/lpr/mgs019
- Ballantyne KN, Summersby S, Pearson JR, Nicol K, Pirie E, Quinn C, et al. A transparent approach: openness in forensic science reporting. Forensic Sci Int Synergy. 2024;8:
100474 . DOI: 10.1016/j.fsisyn.2024.100474 - Sigman ME, Williams MR. Promoting transparency in forensic science by integrating categorical and evaluative reporting through decision theory. Front Anal Sci. 2023;3:
1105642 . DOI: 10.3389/frans.2023.1105642 - Sunde N, Franqueira VNL. Adding transparency to uncertainty: an argument-based method for evaluative opinions. Forensic Sci Int Digit Investig. 2023;47:
301657 . DOI: 10.1016/j.fsidi.2023.301657 - Lucas G,
director . Star Wars: Episode IV – A New Hope [film]. Lucasfilm Ltd.; 1977.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.69525/jasqde.309 | Journal eISSN: 1524-7287
Language: English
Page range: 3 - 3
Submitted on: Sep 5, 2025
Accepted on: Nov 25, 2025
Published on: Apr 2, 2026
Published by: American Society of Questioned Document Examiners
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
© 2026 Mathieu Arès, R. Brent Ostrum, published by American Society of Questioned Document Examiners
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.