- Discussion paper: Reaction to Hamer and Thompson in LPR
- Law, probability and risk
- Volume | Issue number
- 11 | 4
- Pages (from-to)
- Document type
- Faculty of Science (FNWI)
- Korteweg-de Vries Institute for Mathematics (KdVI)
- The Hamer contribution reveals a lot of the common misperceptions surrounding the issues in R v. T.
While the paper risks adding to the confusion of the uninformed reader, we will use it to list and
address such misperceptions in this reaction. We acknowledge that the author will in some cases have described misconceptions held by others rather than his own, although this is not always clear.
- go to publisher's site
- Reaction to: Hamer, D. (2012). Discussion paper: The R v T controversy: forensic evidence, law and logic. --- Law, probability and risk, 11 --- (4), 331-345; and to: Thompson, W.C. (2012). Discussion paper: Hard cases make bad law: reactions to R v T. --- Law, probability and risk, 11 --- (4), 347-359.
If you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please let the Library know, stating your reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please Ask the Library, or send a letter to: Library of the University of Amsterdam, Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam, The Netherlands. You will be contacted as soon as possible.