Search

Your search keyword '"Zabell, Sandy"' showing total 11 results
Start Over Author "Zabell, Sandy" Publication Type Electronic Resources
11 results on '"Zabell, Sandy"'

1. Reply to Response to Vacuous standards – subversion of the OSAC standards-development process

Author

Morrison, Geoffrey Stewart, Neumann, Cedric, Geoghegan, Patrick Henry, Edmond, Gary, Grant, Tim, Ostrum, R. Brent, Roberts, Paul, Saks, Michael, Syndercombe Court, Denise, Thompson, William C., Zabell, Sandy, Morrison, Geoffrey Stewart, Neumann, Cedric, Geoghegan, Patrick Henry, Edmond, Gary, Grant, Tim, Ostrum, R. Brent, Roberts, Paul, Saks, Michael, Syndercombe Court, Denise, Thompson, William C., and Zabell, Sandy

Abstract

This Letter to the Editor is a reply to Mohammed et al. (2021) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2021.100145, which in turn is a response to Morrison et al. (2020) “Vacuous standards – subversion of the OSAC standards-development process” https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2020.06.005.

Published
2021

2. Reply to Response to Vacuous standards – subversion of the OSAC standards-development process

Author

Morrison, Geoffrey Stewart, Neumann, Cedric, Geoghegan, Patrick Henry, Edmond, Gary, Grant, Tim, Ostrum, R. Brent, Roberts, Paul, Saks, Michael, Syndercombe Court, Denise, Thompson, William C., Zabell, Sandy, Morrison, Geoffrey Stewart, Neumann, Cedric, Geoghegan, Patrick Henry, Edmond, Gary, Grant, Tim, Ostrum, R. Brent, Roberts, Paul, Saks, Michael, Syndercombe Court, Denise, Thompson, William C., and Zabell, Sandy

Abstract

This Letter to the Editor is a reply to Mohammed et al. (2021) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2021.100145, which in turn is a response to Morrison et al. (2020) “Vacuous standards – subversion of the OSAC standards-development process” https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2020.06.005.

Published
2021

3. Reply to Response to Vacuous standards - Subversion of the OSAC standards-development process.

Author

Morrison, Geoffrey Stewart, Morrison, Geoffrey Stewart, Neumann, Cedric, Geoghegan, Patrick Henry, Edmond, Gary, Grant, Tim, Ostrum, R Brent, Roberts, Paul, Saks, Michael, Syndercombe Court, Denise, Thompson, William C, Zabell, Sandy, Morrison, Geoffrey Stewart, Morrison, Geoffrey Stewart, Neumann, Cedric, Geoghegan, Patrick Henry, Edmond, Gary, Grant, Tim, Ostrum, R Brent, Roberts, Paul, Saks, Michael, Syndercombe Court, Denise, Thompson, William C, and Zabell, Sandy

Abstract

This Letter to the Editor is a reply to Mohammed et al. (2021) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2021.100145, which in turn is a response to Morrison et al. (2020) "Vacuous standards - subversion of the OSAC standards-development process" https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2020.06.005.

Published
2021

4. Reply to Response to Vacuous standards - Subversion of the OSAC standards-development process.

Author

Morrison, Geoffrey Stewart, Morrison, Geoffrey Stewart, Neumann, Cedric, Geoghegan, Patrick Henry, Edmond, Gary, Grant, Tim, Ostrum, R Brent, Roberts, Paul, Saks, Michael, Syndercombe Court, Denise, Thompson, William C, Zabell, Sandy, Morrison, Geoffrey Stewart, Morrison, Geoffrey Stewart, Neumann, Cedric, Geoghegan, Patrick Henry, Edmond, Gary, Grant, Tim, Ostrum, R Brent, Roberts, Paul, Saks, Michael, Syndercombe Court, Denise, Thompson, William C, and Zabell, Sandy

Abstract

This Letter to the Editor is a reply to Mohammed et al. (2021) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2021.100145, which in turn is a response to Morrison et al. (2020) "Vacuous standards - subversion of the OSAC standards-development process" https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2020.06.005.

Published
2021

5. Reply to Response to Vacuous standards – subversion of the OSAC standards-development process

Author

Morrison, Geoffrey Stewart, Neumann, Cedric, Geoghegan, Patrick Henry, Edmond, Gary, Grant, Tim, Ostrum, R. Brent, Roberts, Paul, Saks, Michael, Syndercombe Court, Denise, Thompson, William C., Zabell, Sandy, Morrison, Geoffrey Stewart, Neumann, Cedric, Geoghegan, Patrick Henry, Edmond, Gary, Grant, Tim, Ostrum, R. Brent, Roberts, Paul, Saks, Michael, Syndercombe Court, Denise, Thompson, William C., and Zabell, Sandy

Abstract

This Letter to the Editor is a reply to Mohammed et al. (2021) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2021.100145, which in turn is a response to Morrison et al. (2020) “Vacuous standards – subversion of the OSAC standards-development process” https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2020.06.005.

Published
2021

6. Reply to Response to Vacuous standards – subversion of the OSAC standards-development process

Author

Morrison, Geoffrey Stewart, Neumann, Cedric, Geoghegan, Patrick Henry, Edmond, Gary, Grant, Tim, Ostrum, R. Brent, Roberts, Paul, Saks, Michael, Syndercombe Court, Denise, Thompson, William C., Zabell, Sandy, Morrison, Geoffrey Stewart, Neumann, Cedric, Geoghegan, Patrick Henry, Edmond, Gary, Grant, Tim, Ostrum, R. Brent, Roberts, Paul, Saks, Michael, Syndercombe Court, Denise, Thompson, William C., and Zabell, Sandy

Abstract

This Letter to the Editor is a reply to Mohammed et al. (2021) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2021.100145, which in turn is a response to Morrison et al. (2020) “Vacuous standards – subversion of the OSAC standards-development process” https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2020.06.005.

Published
2021

7. Forensic bitemark identification: weak foundations, exaggerated claims.

Author

Saks, Michael J, Saks, Michael J, Albright, Thomas, Bohan, Thomas L, Bierer, Barbara E, Bowers, C Michael, Bush, Mary A, Bush, Peter J, Casadevall, Arturo, Cole, Simon A, Denton, M Bonner, Diamond, Shari Seidman, Dioso-Villa, Rachel, Epstein, Jules, Faigman, David, Faigman, Lisa, Fienberg, Stephen E, Garrett, Brandon L, Giannelli, Paul C, Greely, Henry T, Imwinkelried, Edward, Jamieson, Allan, Kafadar, Karen, Kassirer, Jerome P, Koehler, Jonathan 'Jay', Korn, David, Mnookin, Jennifer, Morrison, Alan B, Murphy, Erin, Peerwani, Nizam, Peterson, Joseph L, Risinger, D Michael, Sensabaugh, George F, Spiegelman, Clifford, Stern, Hal, Thompson, William C, Wayman, James L, Zabell, Sandy, Zumwalt, Ross E, Saks, Michael J, Saks, Michael J, Albright, Thomas, Bohan, Thomas L, Bierer, Barbara E, Bowers, C Michael, Bush, Mary A, Bush, Peter J, Casadevall, Arturo, Cole, Simon A, Denton, M Bonner, Diamond, Shari Seidman, Dioso-Villa, Rachel, Epstein, Jules, Faigman, David, Faigman, Lisa, Fienberg, Stephen E, Garrett, Brandon L, Giannelli, Paul C, Greely, Henry T, Imwinkelried, Edward, Jamieson, Allan, Kafadar, Karen, Kassirer, Jerome P, Koehler, Jonathan 'Jay', Korn, David, Mnookin, Jennifer, Morrison, Alan B, Murphy, Erin, Peerwani, Nizam, Peterson, Joseph L, Risinger, D Michael, Sensabaugh, George F, Spiegelman, Clifford, Stern, Hal, Thompson, William C, Wayman, James L, Zabell, Sandy, and Zumwalt, Ross E

Abstract

Several forensic sciences, especially of the pattern-matching kind, are increasingly seen to lack the scientific foundation needed to justify continuing admission as trial evidence. Indeed, several have been abolished in the recent past. A likely next candidate for elimination is bitemark identification. A number of DNA exonerations have occurred in recent years for individuals convicted based on erroneous bitemark identifications. Intense scientific and legal scrutiny has resulted. An important National Academies review found little scientific support for the field. The Texas Forensic Science Commission recently recommended a moratorium on the admission of bitemark expert testimony. The California Supreme Court has a case before it that could start a national dismantling of forensic odontology. This article describes the (legal) basis for the rise of bitemark identification and the (scientific) basis for its impending fall. The article explains the general logic of forensic identification, the claims of bitemark identification, and reviews relevant empirical research on bitemark identification-highlighting both the lack of research and the lack of support provided by what research does exist. The rise and possible fall of bitemark identification evidence has broader implications-highlighting the weak scientific culture of forensic science and the law's difficulty in evaluating and responding to unreliable and unscientific evidence.

Published
2016

8. Forensic bitemark identification: weak foundations, exaggerated claims.

Author

Saks, Michael J, Saks, Michael J, Albright, Thomas, Bohan, Thomas L, Bierer, Barbara E, Bowers, C Michael, Bush, Mary A, Bush, Peter J, Casadevall, Arturo, Cole, Simon A, Denton, M Bonner, Diamond, Shari Seidman, Dioso-Villa, Rachel, Epstein, Jules, Faigman, David, Faigman, Lisa, Fienberg, Stephen E, Garrett, Brandon L, Giannelli, Paul C, Greely, Henry T, Imwinkelried, Edward, Jamieson, Allan, Kafadar, Karen, Kassirer, Jerome P, Koehler, Jonathan 'Jay', Korn, David, Mnookin, Jennifer, Morrison, Alan B, Murphy, Erin, Peerwani, Nizam, Peterson, Joseph L, Risinger, D Michael, Sensabaugh, George F, Spiegelman, Clifford, Stern, Hal, Thompson, William C, Wayman, James L, Zabell, Sandy, Zumwalt, Ross E, Saks, Michael J, Saks, Michael J, Albright, Thomas, Bohan, Thomas L, Bierer, Barbara E, Bowers, C Michael, Bush, Mary A, Bush, Peter J, Casadevall, Arturo, Cole, Simon A, Denton, M Bonner, Diamond, Shari Seidman, Dioso-Villa, Rachel, Epstein, Jules, Faigman, David, Faigman, Lisa, Fienberg, Stephen E, Garrett, Brandon L, Giannelli, Paul C, Greely, Henry T, Imwinkelried, Edward, Jamieson, Allan, Kafadar, Karen, Kassirer, Jerome P, Koehler, Jonathan 'Jay', Korn, David, Mnookin, Jennifer, Morrison, Alan B, Murphy, Erin, Peerwani, Nizam, Peterson, Joseph L, Risinger, D Michael, Sensabaugh, George F, Spiegelman, Clifford, Stern, Hal, Thompson, William C, Wayman, James L, Zabell, Sandy, and Zumwalt, Ross E

Abstract

Several forensic sciences, especially of the pattern-matching kind, are increasingly seen to lack the scientific foundation needed to justify continuing admission as trial evidence. Indeed, several have been abolished in the recent past. A likely next candidate for elimination is bitemark identification. A number of DNA exonerations have occurred in recent years for individuals convicted based on erroneous bitemark identifications. Intense scientific and legal scrutiny has resulted. An important National Academies review found little scientific support for the field. The Texas Forensic Science Commission recently recommended a moratorium on the admission of bitemark expert testimony. The California Supreme Court has a case before it that could start a national dismantling of forensic odontology. This article describes the (legal) basis for the rise of bitemark identification and the (scientific) basis for its impending fall. The article explains the general logic of forensic identification, the claims of bitemark identification, and reviews relevant empirical research on bitemark identification-highlighting both the lack of research and the lack of support provided by what research does exist. The rise and possible fall of bitemark identification evidence has broader implications-highlighting the weak scientific culture of forensic science and the law's difficulty in evaluating and responding to unreliable and unscientific evidence.

Published
2016

9. Regarding Champod, editorial: 'Research focused mainly on bias will paralyse forensic science'.

Author

Risinger, D Michael, Risinger, D Michael, Thompson, William C, Jamieson, Allan, Koppl, Roger, Kornfield, Irving, Krane, Dan, Mnookin, Jennifer L, Rosenthal, Robert, Saks, Michael J, Zabell, Sandy L, Risinger, D Michael, Risinger, D Michael, Thompson, William C, Jamieson, Allan, Koppl, Roger, Kornfield, Irving, Krane, Dan, Mnookin, Jennifer L, Rosenthal, Robert, Saks, Michael J, and Zabell, Sandy L

Published
2014

10. Regarding Champod, editorial: 'Research focused mainly on bias will paralyse forensic science'.

Author

Risinger, D Michael, Risinger, D Michael, Thompson, William C, Jamieson, Allan, Koppl, Roger, Kornfield, Irving, Krane, Dan, Mnookin, Jennifer L, Rosenthal, Robert, Saks, Michael J, Zabell, Sandy L, Risinger, D Michael, Risinger, D Michael, Thompson, William C, Jamieson, Allan, Koppl, Roger, Kornfield, Irving, Krane, Dan, Mnookin, Jennifer L, Rosenthal, Robert, Saks, Michael J, and Zabell, Sandy L

Published
2014

11. Updating Subjective Probability.

Author

STANFORD UNIV CA DEPT OF STATISTICS, Diaconis,Persi, Zabell,Sandy L, STANFORD UNIV CA DEPT OF STATISTICS, Diaconis,Persi, and Zabell,Sandy L

Abstract

This paper discusses some of the mathematical properties of Jeffrey's rule for revising a probability P to a new probability P*, connecting it with sufficient partitions, and maximum entropy updating of contingency tables. The main results concern simultaneous revision on two partitions., Revision to Rept. no. TR-136 dated Oct 79.

Published
1982

Catalog

Books, media, physical & digital resources
See catalog results