CallenC (2007) Interdisciplinary and comparative perspectives on hearsay and confrontation. In: RobertsPRedmayneM (eds) Innovations in Evidence and Proof. Oxford: Hart.
2.
ColeSARobertsA (2012) Certainty, individualisation and the subjective nature of expert fingerprint evidence. Crim LR 824.
3.
CunliffeE (2014) Judging, fast and slow: Using decision-making theory to explore judicial fact determination. International Journal of Evidence and Proof18(2): 139–180.
4.
EllisonLMunroVE (2015) ‘Telling tales’: Exploring narratives of life and law within the (mock) jury room. Legal Studies35(2): 201–225.
5.
FeinbergSE (1986) Gatecrashers, blue buses, and the Bayesian representation of legal evidence. Boston University Law Review66: 693–699.
6.
FriedmanRD (1998) Thoughts from across the water on hearsay and confrontation. Crim LR 697.
7.
HamerD (2003) The structure and strength of the propensity inference: Singularity, linkage and other evidence. Monash University Law Review29: 137.
8.
JacksonJSummersS (2013) Confrontation with Strasbourg: UK and Swiss approaches to criminal evidence. Crim LR 115.
9.
KayeDH (1979) The paradox of the gate-crasher and other stories. Arizona State LJ101.
10.
Modern Law Review (2015) Obituary: Mike Redmayne. Modern Law Review78(5): 727–728.
11.
O’BrianWEJr (2005) The right of confrontation: US and European perspectives. Law Quarterly Review121(3): 481–510.
12.
PundikA (2008) Statistical evidence and individual litigants: A reconsideration of Wasserman’s argument from autonomy. International Journal of Evidence and Proof12(4): 303–324.
13.
PundikA (2015) Freedom and generalizations. 28 January 2015, Available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2556690 (accessed 4 March 2016).
14.
RedmayneM (1995) Doubts and burdens: DNA evidence, probability and the courts. Crim LR 464.
15.
RedmayneM (1997) Presenting probabilities in court: The DNA experience. International Journal of Evidence and Proof1(4): 187–214.
16.
RedmayneM (1998) Bayesianism and proof. In: FreemanMReeceH (eds) Science in Court. Aldershot: Ashgate.
17.
RedmayneM (1999) A likely story!Oxford Journal of Legal Studies19(4): 659–672.
18.
RedmayneM (2001) Expert Evidence and Criminal Justice. Oxford: OUP.
19.
RedmayneM (2002a) The relevance of bad character. Cambridge Law Journal61(3): 684–714.
20.
RedmayneM (2002b) The Law Commission’s character convictions. International Journal of Evidence and Proof6(2): 71–93.
21.
RedmayneM (2003a) Myths, relationships and coincidences: The new problems of sexual history. International Journal of Evidence and Proof7(2): 75–101.
22.
RedmayneM (2003b) Rationality, naturalism, and evidence law. Michigan State Law Review4: 849–884.
23.
RedmayneM (2003c) Objective probability and the assessment of evidence. Law, Probability and Risk2: 275–294.
24.
RedmayneM (2007a) Rethinking the privilege against self-incrimination. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies27(2): 209–232.
25.
RedmayneM (2007b) Analysing evidence case law. In: RobertsPRedmayneM (eds) Innovations in Evidence and Proof. Oxford: Hart.
26.
RedmayneM (2008a) English warnings. Cardozo Law Review30(3): 1047–1089.
27.
RedmayneM (2008b) Exploring the proof paradoxes. Legal Theory14(4): 281–309.
28.
RedmayneM (2008c) The ethics of character evidence. Current Legal Problems61(1): 371–391.
29.
RedmayneM (2011) Recognising propensity. Crim LR 177.
30.
RedmayneM (2012a) Confronting confrontation. In: RobertsPHunterJ (eds) Criminal Evidence and Human Rights. Oxford: Hart.
31.
RedmayneM (2012b) Hearsay and human rights: Al-Khawaja in the Grand Chamber. Modern Law Review75(5): 865–878.
32.
RedmayneM (2015) Character in the Criminal Trial. Oxford: OUP.
33.
RedmayneMAllenR (eds) (1997) Bayesianism and juridical proof. International Journal of Evidence and Proof1(5): 253–360.
34.
RedmayneMRobertsPAitkenCJacksonG (2011) Forensic science evidence in question. Crim LR 347.
35.
RobertsP (2015) Mike Redmayne 1967–2015International Journal of Evidence and Proof19(4): 207–208.
36.
RobertsP (2016) Redmayne’s character and criminal jurisprudence. Modern Law Review 78: forthcoming.
37.
RobertsPAitkenC (2014) The Logic of Forensic Proof: Inferential Reasoning in Criminal Evidence and Forensic Science. RSS Practitioner Guide No 3. London: Royal Statistical Society. Available atwww.rss.org.uk/statsandlaw (accessed 8 February 2016).
38.
RobertsPHunterJ (2012) Introduction: The human rights revolution in criminal evidence and procedure. In: RobertsPHunterJ (eds) Criminal Evidence and Human Rights. Oxford: Hart.
RobertsPAitkenCJacksonG. (2011a) When the numbers count–Part 1. Criminal Law and Justice Weekly175: 304.
41.
RobertsPAitkenCJacksonG. (2011b) When the numbers count–Part 2. Criminal Law and Justice Weekly175: 319.
42.
RobertsPAitkenCJacksonG (2015a) From admissibility to interpretation: New guidance on expert evidence. Criminal Law and Justice Weekly179: 538.
43.
RobertsPAitkenCJacksonG (2015b) From admissibility to interpretation: New guidance on expert evidence. Criminal Law and Justice Weekly179: 564.
44.
SaksMJKoehlerJJ (2005) The coming paradigm shift in forensic identification science. Science309(5736): 892–895.
45.
SaksMJKoehlerJJ (2008) The individualization fallacy in forensic science evidence. Vanderbilt Law Review61(1): 199–219.
46.
TillersP (2005) If wishes were horses: Discursive comments on attempts to prevent individuals from being unfairly burdened by their reference class. Law, Probability and Risk4(1–2): 33–49.
47.
WassermanDT (1991) The morality of statistical proof and the risk of mistaken liability. Cardozo Law Review13: 935–976.
