Bijlage 2 Registratie-eisen en toetsingsprocedure 006.1 Forensisch Wapen- en Munitie- onderzoek – Versie 1.0

Registratie-eisen en toetsingsprocedure 006.1 Forensisch Wapen- en Munitie- onderzoek – Versie 1.0

Een aanvrager Forensisch Wapen- en Munitieonderzoek dient op de hoogte te zijn van ontwikkelingen in het vakgebied. Onderstaande literatuurlijst fungeert als kader en is niet limitatief.

• • Biasotti, A.A. (1959). A Statistical Study of the Individual Characteristics of Fired Bullets, Journal of Forensic Sciences, 4 (1), 34–50.
• • Biasotti, A.A. & Murdock, J. (1984). Criteria for Identification or State of the Art of Firearm and Toolmark Identification, AFTE Journal, 16 (4),16–24.
• • Bonfanti, M. & De Kinder, J. (1999). The influence of manufacturing processes on the identification of bullets and cartridge cases – a review of the literature, Science & Justice, 39 (1), 3–10.
• • Burrard, G. (1990). The Identification of Firearms and Forensic Ballistics. Prescott, Arizona, USA: Wolfe Publishing Company.
• • Faigman, D.L., Kaye D.H., Saks M.J. and Sanders J. (2010). Modern Scientific Evidence: The Law and Science of Expert Testimony. Firearms and Toolmarks Identification. USA: West Publishing.
• • Gunther, J.D. and Gunther, C.O. (1935). The Identification of Firearms. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
• • Hatcher, J.S. (1935). Textbook of Firearms Investigation, Identification and Evidence. Plantersville, USA: Small-Arms Technical Publishing Co.
• • Heard, B.J. (1997). Handbook of Firearms and Ballistics – Examining and Interpreting Forensic Evidence. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons.
• • Miller, J. & McLean, M. (1998). Criteria For Identification of Toolmarks, AFTE Journal, 30 (1), 15–61.
• • Miller, J. (2000). Criteria for Identification of Toolmarks, Part II, Single Land Impression comparisons, AFTE Journal, 32 (2), 116–131.
• • Nichols, R.G. (1997). Firearm and Toolmark Identification Criteria: a review of the Literature, Journal of Forensic Sciences, 42 (3), 466–474.
• • Nichols, R.G. (2003) : Firearm and Toolmark Identification Criteria: a review of the Literature, Journal of Forensic Sciences, 48 (2), 318–327.
• • Moran, B. (2002). A Report on the AFTE Theory of Identification of Toolmarks and Range of Conclusions for Tool Mark Identification and Resulting Approaches to Casework, AFTE Journal, 34 (2), 227–235.
• • Nichols, R.G. (2003). Consecutive Matching Striations (CMS): Its definition, Study and Application in the Discipline of Firearms and Tool Mark Identification, AFTE Journal, 35 (3), 298–306.
• • Sellier, K. (1982). Schusswaffen und Schusswirkungen: Ballistik, Medizin, Kriminalistik. Lübeck: Schmidt-Römhild.
• • The AFTE theory of identification as it relates to toolmarks, http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/training/firearms-training/module13/fir_m13_t05_07.htm, geraadpleegd op 25 mei 2011.
• • Robertson, B. & Vignaux, G.A. (1995). Interpreting evidence – evaluating forensic science in the courtroom. Chichester, John Wiley & Sons.
• • Lucy, D. (2005). Introduction to Statistics for Forensic Scientists. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
• • Broeders, A.P.A. (2003). Op zoek naar de bron – over de grondslagen van de criminalistiek en de waardering van het forensisch bewijs. Deventer: Kluwer.
• • Sjerps, M.J.& Coster van Voorhout, J.A. (2005). Het onzekere bewijs. Gebruik van statistiek en kansrekening in het strafrecht, Deventer: Kluwer.
• • Berger, C.E.H. (2010). Criminalistiek is terugredeneren. Nederlands Juristenblad, 646 (13), 784–789.
• • Risinger, D.M., Saks, M.J., Thompson, W.C. & Rosenthal, R. (2002). The Daubert/Kumho implications of observer effects in forensic science: hidden problems of expectation and suggestion. California Law Review, 90 (1), 1–56.
• • Saks, M.J., Risinger, D.M., Rosenthal, R., & Thompson, W.C. (2003), Context effects in forensic science. Science & Justice, 43(2), 77–90.
• • Dror, I. E., Charlton, D., & Peron A. (2006). Contextual information renders experts vulnerable to making erroneous identifications. Forensic Science International, 156 (1), 74–78.