Nature and place of crime scene management within forensic sciences

References 

1. Hoke F. Science in the courtroom: what evidence is admissible — and who decides?. The Scientist. 1994;8(12):, 4–51
2. Zimmerman J. The “What If” hypothesis. International Journal of Forensic Document Examiners. 1997;3(3):225–228
3. Grieve DL. Rocking the cradle. Journal of Forensic Identification. 1999;49(6):719–727
4. Grieve DL. Simon says. Journal of Forensic Identification. 2001;51(1):85–97
5. Sturner WQ, Herrmann MA, Boden C, Scarrit TP, Sherman RE, Harmon TS, et al. The Frye hearing in Florida: an attempt to exclude scientific evidence. Journal of Forensic Sciences, JFSCA. 2000;45(4):908–910
6. Kaufman HH. The expert witness. neither Frye nor Daubert solved the problem: what can be done?. Science & Justice. 2001;41(1):7–20
7. Zlotnick J, Lin JR. Handwriting evidence in federal courts — from Frye to Kumho. Forensic Science Review. 2001;13:87–98
8. Pretty IA, Sweet D. The scientific basis for human bitemark analyses — a critical review. Science & Justice. 2001;41(2):85–92
9. McDonald A. Battles are won in the temples. Journal of Forensic Identification, JFI. 2002;52(4):397–399
10. Morton EA. Emergency!. Journal of Forensic Identification, JFI. 2002;52(3):250–251
11. Evett IW. Criminalistics: the future of expertise. Science & Justice. 1993;33(3):173–178
12. Robertson B, Vignaux BA. Interpreting Evidence. Evaluating Forensic Science in the Courtroom. New York, NY, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 1995;
13. Evett IW. Expert evidence and forensic misconceptions of the nature of exact science. Science & Justice. 1996;36(2):118–122
14. Kind SS. The Sceptical Witness. London: Hodology; 1999;
15. Faigman DL, Porter E, Saks MJ. Check your crystal ball at the courthouse door, please: exploring the past, understanding the present, and worrying about the future of scientific evidence. Cardozo Law Review. 1994;15:
16. Saks MJ. Implications of the Daubert test for forensic identification science. Shepard's Expert & Scientific Evidence Quarterly. 1994;1(3):427–434
17. Saks MJ. Merlin and Solomon: lessons from the law's formative encounters with forensic identification science. Hastings Law Journal. 1998;49:1069–1141
18. Saks MJ, Koehler JJ. What DNA “Fingerprinting” can teach the law about the rest of forensic science. Cardozo Law Review. 1991;13:361–372
19. US Supreme Court No. 92-102, William Daubert, al., Petitioners v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued March 30, 1993 — Decided June 28, 1993.
20. Inman K, Rudin N. Principles and Practice of Criminalistics — the Profession of Forensic Science. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press; 2001;
21. Tuthill H. Individualization: Principles and Procedures in Criminalistics. Jacksonville, FL, USA: Lightning Powder, Co.; 1994;
22. Bevel T. Applying the scientific method to crime scene reconstruction. Journal of Forensic Identification. 2001;51(2):150–162
23. Wertheim K. Re: ACE-V: is it scientifically reliable and accurate?. Journal of Forensic Identification. 2002;52(6):669–677
24. Chalmers AF. La fabrication de la science. Paris: Editions de la découverte; 1990;
25. Chalmers AF. What Is This Thing Called Science?. 3rd ed.. Indianapolis, IN, USA: Hackett Publishing Co.; 2000;
26. Feyerabend P. Farewell to Reason. London: Verso; 2000;
27. Eco U. Kant et l'ornythorynque. Paris: Le livre de poche; 1999;
28. Harrison K. Is crime scene examination science, and does it matter anyway?. Science & Justice. 2006;46(2):65–68
29. US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, US vs Byron Mitchell Daubert Hearing Documents, Criminal No. 96-00407, Dec. 15th, 2000.
30. Whewell W. Novum organon renovatum, book II of the construction of science. In:  Butts RE editors. Theory of Scientific Method. 1858:Indianapolis, IN, USA: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc.; 1989;
31. Butts RE. In: Theory of Scientific Method. Indianapolis, IN, USA: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc.; 1989;
32. Nicol JD. The Bachelor of Sciences in Criminalistics (Program Brochure). Chicago, IL, USA: University of Illinois; 1972;
33. Forrest R. Wither academic forensic science. Science & Justice. 2004;44(4):195
34. Nickles T. Discovery. In:  Olby RC,  Cantor GN,  Christie JRR,  Hodge MJS editor. Companion to the History of Modern Science. London: Routledge; 1996;p. 148–165
35. Sloan PR. Natural history (1670–1802). In:  Olby RC,  Cantor GN,  Christie JRR,  Hodge MJS editor. Companion to the History of Modern Science. London: Routledge; 1996;p. 295–313
36. Mc Donald Ross G. Science and philosophy. In:  Olby RC,  Cantor GN,  Christie JRR,  Hodge MJS editor. Companion to the History of Modern Science. London: Routledge; 1996;p. 799–815
37. Porter R. The history of science and the history of society. In:  Olby RC,  Cantor GN,  Christie JRR,  Hodge MJS editor. Companion to the History of Modern Science. London: Routledge; 1996;p. 32–46
38. Hedley Brooke J. Science and religion. In:  Olby RC,  Cantor GN,  Christie JRR,  Hodge MJS editor. Companion to the History of Modern Science. London: Routledge; 1996;p. 763–782
39. Mc Mullin E. The development of philosophy of science (1600–1900). In:  Olby RC,  Cantor GN,  Christie JRR,  Hodge MJS editor. Companion to the History of Modern Science. London: Routledge; 1996;p. 816–837
40. Descartes R. In: Méditations métaphysiques. Paris: GF Flammarion; 2001;p. 1647
41. Bacon F. In: The New Organon. UK: Cambridge University Press; 2000;p. 1620
42. Hume D. In: Enquête sur l'entendement humain. Paris: GF Flammarion; 1983;p. 1758
43. Kant E. In: Critique de la raison pure. Paris: GF Flammarion; 2001;p. 1781
44. Whewell W. Remarks on mathematical reasoning and on the logic of induction. In:  Butts RE editors. Theory of Scientific Method. 1837:Indianapolis, IN, USA: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc.; 1989;p. 33–53
45. Peirce CS. In: La première règle de la logique, in Le raisonnement et la logique des choses. Paris: Editions du Cerf; 1995;p. 1898
46. Poincaré H. In: La science et l'hypothèse. Paris: Flammarion; 1991;p. 1902
47. Poincaré H. In: La valeur de la science. Paris: Flammarion; 1991;p. 1905
48. Comte A. In: Philosophie des sciences – Textes choisis. Paris: Presses universitaires de France; 1974;p. 1907
49. Newton I. In: rincipia: Principes mathématiques de la philosophie naturelle. Paris: Dunod; 2005;p. 1687
50. Popper KR. La logique de la découverte scientifique. Paris: Bibliothèque scientifique Payot; 1973;
51. Popper KR. Conjectures et réfutations - La croissance du savoir scientifique. Paris: Payot; 1985;
52. Popper KR. La connaissance objective. Paris: Champs - Flammarion; 1991;
53. Kuhn T. La structure des révolutions scientifiques. Paris: Champs - Flammarion; 1970;
54. Kuhn T. The Essential Tension. IL, USA: University of Chicago; 1977;
55. Kuhn T. Logic of discovery or psychology of research. In:  Lakatos I,  Musgrave A editor. Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. UK: Cambridge University Press; 1999;
56. Feyerabend V. Against Method. London: Verso; 2000;
57. Crispino F. Le principe de Locard est-il scientifique? Ou analyse de la scientificité des principes fondamentaux de la criminalistique, thèse de doctorat, institut de police scientifique de l'Université de Lausanne. 2006;Downloadable onhttp://doc.rero.ch/search.py?cc=RERO+DOC&as=0&ln=fr&p=crispino&f=author
58. Habermas J. La technique et la science comme «idéologie». Paris: TEL Gallimard; 1973;
59. Polanyi M. Science Faith and Society. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press; 1947;
60. Inman K, Rudin N. The origin of evidence. Forensic Science International. 2002;126(1):11–16
    • Abstract
    • Full Text
    • Full-Text PDF (219 KB)
    • CrossRef
61. Hacking I. Representing and Intervening. UK: Cambridge University Press; 1983;
62. Ackermann RJ. Data Instruments and Theory: a Dialectical Approach to Understanding Science. Princeton, NJ, USA: Princeton University Press; 1985;
63. Ackermann A. The Neglect of Experiment. UK: Cambridge University Press; 1986;
64. Franklin A. Experiment Right or Wrong. UK: Cambridge University Press; 1990;
65. Giere RN. Explaining Science: a Cognitive Approach (Science and Its Conceptual Foundations). Chicago, IL, USA: University of Chicago Press; 1990;
66. Galison PL. How Experiments End. Chicago, IL, USA: University of Chicago Press; 1992;
67. Mayo D. Error and the Growth of Experimental Knowledge. IL, USA: The University of Chicago Press; 1996;
68. George C. Polymorphisme du raisonnement humain. In: Une approche de la flexibilité de l'activité inférentielle. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France; 1997;
69. Nickles T. Discovery. In:  Olby RC,  Cantor GN,  Christie JRR,  Hodge MJS editor. Companion to the History of Modern Science. London: Routledge; 1996;
70. Harrowitz N. The body of the detective model. In:  Eco U,  Sebeok TA editor. Charles S. Peirce and Edgar Allan Poe in Dupin, Holmes, Peirce the Sign of Three. First Midland Book Edition. IN, USA: Indiana University Press; 1998;p. 198–220
71. Sebeok TA, Umiker-Sebeok J. “You Know My Method”: a juxtaposition of Charles S. Pierce and Sherlock Holmes. In:  Eco U,  Sebeok TA editor. Dupin, Holmes, Peirce the Sign of Three. First Midland Book ed.. IN, USA: Indiana University Press; 1988;p. 11–54
72. Ginzburg C. Clues: Morelli, Freud, and Sherlock Holmes. In:  Eco U,  Sebeok TA editor. Dupin, Holmes, Peirce the Sign of Three. First Midland Book ed.. IN, USA: Indiana University Press; 1988;p. 81–118
73. Zeleznikow J. The split-up project: induction, context and knowledge discovery in law. Law, Probability and Risk. 2004;(3):147–168
74. Bonfantini MA, Prodi G. To guess or not to guess. In:  Eco U,  Sebeok TA editor. Dupin, Holmes, Peirce the Sign of Three. First Midland Book ed.. IN, USA: Indiana University Press; 1988;p. 119–134
75. Chisum J. An introduction to crime scene reconstruction. In: TURVEY B., Criminal Profiling — an Introduction to Behavioral Evidence Analysis. New York, NY, USA: Academic Press; 1999;
76. Kwan QY. Inference of Identity of Source, Dissertation, Doctoral Thesis in Criminology. CA, USA: Berkeley University; 1976;
77. Goldman AI. Simple heuristics and legal evidence. Law, Probability and Risk. 2003;2:215–226