Discussion paper: Reaction to Hamer and Thompson in LPR
| Authors |
|
|---|---|
| Publication date | 2012 |
| Journal | Law, probability and risk |
| Volume | Issue number | 11 | 4 |
| Pages (from-to) | 373-375 |
| Organisations |
|
| Abstract |
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. |
| Document type | Article |
| Note | 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. |
| Language | English |
| Published at | https://doi.org/10.1093/lpr/mgs024 |
| Permalink to this page | |