Eyewitness evaluation through inference to the best explanation

Jellema, Hylke

doi:10.1007/s11229-022-03858-w

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 48 publications

(33 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Chapter VI is based on Jellema, H. (2022a). Eyewitness evaluation through inference to the best explanation.…”

Section: The Structure Of This Thesismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Depending on the situation, this "washing out" can take a very long time and a great amount of evidence whereas in legal settings time, resources and available evidence are limited (Amaya, 2015, 83;Godfrey-Smith, 2003, 209-10). Furthermore, there is often neither a 'correct' likelihood for a given piece of evidence in criminal cases, nor a reason to presume that people will always agree on these likelihoods (Godfrey- Smith, 2003, 209-10;Jellema, 2022a).…”

Section: The Worries Of Subjective and Evidential Probabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

(Im)probable stories

Jellema¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

but also being not-quite-a-student was quite demotivating (especially when combined with COVID lockdowns). So, while I am satisfied with the end-result, my PhD experience was something of a mixed bag. However, one thing that I do not have mixed feelings about is the group of people who helped me along the way.The following persons not only helped make this thesis better, without their aid I would likely not have finished it in the first place.I would first and foremost like to thank my promotors Henry Prakken and Anne Ruth Mackor. Before I began this PhD, I already knew what you were both like as supervisors as you had supervised my master's thesis. After I was done with that thesis, I sent you an email in which I expressed my gratitude for your kind and constructive supervision. I observed that not everyone is as lucky with their supervisors (I'd heard some horror stories). I also made a prediction: that we would continue to get along well during my PhD. I am happy to say that this was a successful prediction and I stand by the words I wrote in that email. I am grateful for all the time that you devoted to reading my work carefully and critically over these past years. Admittedly, it was not always easy to feel this gratitude when I received yet another round of extensive comments on my work. However, if not for all your help, I wouldn't be nearly as satisfied with the end result and it made me a better academic. But what I am perhaps most thankful for is that I could always come to you with any problems I had, whether they were professional or personal, in the knowledge that you would offer me understanding, kind words, and good advice.A close third in the list of people that I should absolutely not forget to thank is Pauline Westerman. Pauline, you had very little impact on what is written in this thesis. When I showed you one of my first chapters, you refused to read it, 9 exclaiming with disgust that there was a formula on the second page. Nonetheless, you contributed to the successful completion of my PhD in countless other ways.Your first contribution was convincing me to apply for the Research Master of Law, which turned out to be a great choice. After that, you continued to be a mentor to me, and to many of my fellow PhDs as the director of the Graduate School of Law (and these days as the 'PhD (grand)mother'). You also helped me (and the other PhDs) immensely by organizing online meetings during the pandemic, where we talked about hobbies and other happy things. Those meetings were bright spots during a dull and depressing time. Finally I want to thank you very much for painting the wonderful picture on the cover of this book.I would also like to express my gratitude to the members of my reading committee: Amalia Amaya, Christian Dahlman and Bart Verheij. Thank you for taking the time to read this thesis, for your helpful feedback and for allowing me to defend it.Speaking of the defense, I am very happy that Pepa Mellema and Stefan Sleeuw agreed to be my paranymphs. Historically, paranymphs acted as bac...

show abstract

“…Chapter VI is based on Jellema, H. (2022a). Eyewitness evaluation through inference to the best explanation.…”

Section: The Structure Of This Thesismentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Worries Of Subjective and Evidential Probabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

(Im)probable stories

Jellema¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Perpetrator knowledge: a Bayesian account

Jellema

2024

Law, Probability and Risk

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Perpetrator knowledge (also known as “guilty knowledge,” “insider knowledge,” “crime knowledge,” or “first-hand knowledge”) is an important, but undertheorized type of criminal evidence. This article clarifies this concept in several ways. First, it offers a precise, probabilistic definition of what perpetrator knowledge is. Second, the article provides a taxonomy of arguments relating to perpetrator knowledge. This classification is based on an analysis of 438 Dutch criminal cases in which this concept was mentioned. Third, it models these arguments using Bayesian networks. Fourth, the article explains a potential reasoning error relating to perpetrator knowledge, namely the fallacy of appeal to probability.

show abstract

Eyewitness evaluation through inference to the best explanation

Cited by 2 publications

References 48 publications

(Im)probable stories

(Im)probable stories

Perpetrator knowledge: a Bayesian account

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About