A logical framework to ballpoint ink dating interpretation

References 

1. Kaufmann HH. The expert witness. Neither Frye nor Daubert solved the problem: what can be done?. Science & Justice. 2001;41(1):7–20
2. Saks MJ. The aftermath of Daubert: an evolving jurisprudence of expert evidence. Jurimetrics Journal. 2000;40:229–241
3. Robertson B, Vignaux GA. Interpreting Evidence — Evaluating Forensic Science in the Courtroom. Chichester, United Kingdom: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.; 1995;
4. Schwartz A. A “dogma of empiricism” revisited: Daubert v. Merrel Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and the need to resurrect the philosophical insight of Frye v. United States. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology. 1997;10(2):149–237
5. Goodstein D. “How Science Works”, chapter in the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence. 2nd edition. US: LRP Publication; 2000;
6. Risinger DM, Saks MJ. The Daubert/Kumho implications of observer effects in forensic science: hidden problems of expectation and suggestion. California Law Review. 2002;90(1):1–56
7. Cantu AA, Prough RS. On the relative ageing of ink — the solvent extraction technique. Journal of Forensic Sciences. 1987;32(5):1151–1174
8. Brunelle RL, Lee H. Determining the relative age of ballpoint ink using a single-solvent extraction, mass-independent approach. Journal of Forensic Sciences. 1989;34(5):1166–1182
9. Aginsky VN. Determination of the age of ballpoint pen ink by gas and densitometric thin-layer chromatography. Journal of Chromatography A. 1994;678:119–125
   • CrossRef
10. Aginsky VN. Dating and characterizing writing, stamp pad and jet printer inks by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. International Journal of Forensic Document Examiners. 1996;2(2):103–116
11. Aginsky VN. Measuring ink extractability as a function of age — why the relative ageing approach is unreliable and why it is more correct to measure ink volatile components than dyes. International Journal of Forensic Document Examiners. 1998;4(3):214–230
12. Andermann T, Neri R. Solvent extraction techniques — possibilities for dating ball point pen inks. Journal of Forensic Sciences. 1998;4(3):231–239
13. Hicks Champod T, Khanmy A, Margot P. Ink ageing: perspectives on standardization. advances in forensic sciences 3, forensic criminalistics 1. In:  Jacob B,  Bonte W,  Huckenbeck W,  Pieper P editor. Proceedings of the 13th Meeting of the International Association of Forensic Sciences, Düsseldorf, Germany 1993. Berlin: Verlag Dr. Köster; 1995;p. 304–309
14. Lociciro S, Mazzella W, Dujourdy L, Lock E, Margot P. Dynamic of the ageing of ballpoint pen ink. Science & Justice. 2004;44(3):165–171
15. K. Jahns Altersbestimmung von Schreibmitteln durch chemische Analyseverfahren. Mannheimer Hefte für Schriftvergleichung, Peter E. Baier, Universität Mannheim, Schmidt/Römhild, 29. Jahrgang, 3/04.
16. C. Weyermann Mass Spectrometric Investigation of The Ageing Processes of Ballpoint Ink For the Examination of Questioned Documents. Phd Thesis, Justus-Liebig-Universität Giessen, Germany, 2005. http://geb.uni-giessen.de/geb/volltexte/2006/3044/ last accessed 6th of June 2007.
17. Cantu AA. A sketch of analytical methods for document dating part I. The static approach: Determining age independent analytical profiles. International Journal of Forensic Documents Examiners. 1995;1(1):40–51
18. Cantu AA. A sketch of analytical methods for document dating part II. The dynamic approach: determining age dependent analytical profiles. International Journal of Forensic Documents Examiners. 1996;2(3):192–208
19. Weyermann C, Kirsch D, Costa Vera C, Spengler B. Forensic investigation of ageing and degradation of ballpoint dyes on paper by LDI- and MALDI-MS analysis. Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry. 2006;17:297–306
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
20. Weyermann C, Kirsch D, Costa Vera C, Spengler B. A study of the drying of ballpoint pen ink on paper by GC/MS. Forensic Science International. 2007;available online 9 August 2006
21. Brunelle RL, Speckin EJ. Technical report with case studies on the accelerated ageing of ball-point inks. International Journal of Forensic Document Examiners. 1998;4(3):240–254
22. Bügler J. Dating of ballpoint pen inks by thermal desorption and gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. Meeting of ASQDE. August 2005;Montreal, Canada
23. Inman K, Rudin N. Principles and practice of criminalistics — the profession of forensic science. A Volume in the Protocols in Forensic Science Series. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press; 2001;
24. Rudram DA. Interpretation of scientific evidence. Science & Justice. 1996;36(3):133–138
25. Taroni F, Aitken CGG. Correspondence: interpretation of scientific evidence. Science & Justice. 1996;36(4):290–292
26. Davis R, Facey O, Hamer P, Rudram D. Correspondence: interpretation of scientific evidence. Science & Justice. 1997;37(1):64–65
27. Evett IW. Expert evidence and forensic misconceptions of the nature of exact science. Science & Justice. 1996;36(2):118–122
28. Evett IW. Bayesian inference and forensic science: problems and perspectives. The Statistician. 1987;36:99–105
29. Cook R, Evett IW, Jackson G, Jones PJ, Lambert JA. A model for case assessment and interpretation. Science & Justice. 1998;38(3):151–156
30. Taroni F, Aitken CGG, Garbolino P. De Finetti's subjectivism, the assessment of probabilities and the evaluation of evidence: a commentary for forensic scientists. Science & Justice. 2001;41(3):145–150
31. Aitken CGG, Taroni F. Statistics and the evaluation of evidence for forensic scientists. Statistics in Practice. 2nd edition. England: Wiley; 2004;
32. Cook R, Evett IW, Jackson G, Jones PJ, Lambert JA. A hierarchy of propositions: Deciding which level to address in casework. Science & Justice. 1998;38(4):231–239
33. Taroni F, Aitken CGG. Correspondence: interpretation of scientific evidence. Science & Justice. 1997;37(1):64–65
34. Horwitz W. Evaluation of analytical methods for regulation of foods and drugs. Analytical Chemistry. 1982;52(1):67A–76A