English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Open

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Insights

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

In 2010, a ruling in the England and Wales Appeal Court quashed a conviction in a homicide case wherein the evidence rested heavily on the association of a shoe sole and a crime scene footwear mark. This decision addressed and criticized the use of the Bayesian approach and likelihood ratios for this form of evidence. The court’s comments and the values used by the footwear mark examiner as applied to his Bayesian evaluation and likelihood ratio are discussed. A contrast is drawn to this method versus the traditional footwear mark evaluation used by footwear examiners in the USA and most other countries.

law, probability and risk

Traditional conclusions in footwear examinations versus the use of the Bayesian approach and likelihood ratio: a review of a recent UK appellate court decision