References

• Amaya, A. (2007). Inference to the best legal explanation. Available at SSRN 2044136.
• Anderson, T., Schum, D., & Twining, W. (2005). Analysis of evidence. Cambridge University Press.
• Bennett, W., & Feldman, M. (1981). Reconstructing reality in the courtroom: Justice and Judgement in the American Culture. London: Tavistock Feldman.
• Bex, F. (2016). Analyzing stories using schemes. In H. P. Hendrik Kaptein, and Bart Verheij (Ed.), Legal evidence and proof: statistics, stories, logic. Routledge
• Bex, F. J. (2011). Arguments, stories and criminal evidence: A formal hybrid theory (Vol. 92). Springer Science & Business Media.
• Bex, F. J., & Verheij, B. (2010). Story schemes for argumentation about the facts of a crime. 2010 AAAI Fall Symposium Series,
• Bex, F., Prakken, H., & Verhey, B. (2006). Anchored Narratives in Reasoning about Evidence. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, 152, 11-20.
• Di Bello, M., & Verheij, B. (2018). Evidential reasoning. In Handbook of legal reasoning and argumentation (pp. 447-493). Springer.
• Douven, I. (2002). Testing inference to the best explanation. Synthese, 130(3), 355-377.
• Harman, G. H. (1965). The inference to the best explanation. The philosophical review, 74(1), 88-95.
• Josephson, J. R., & Josephson, S. G. (2003). Abductive inference: Computation, philosophy, technology. Cambridge University Press.
• Lipton, P. (2004). Inference to the best explanation (2 ed.). Taylor & Francis.
• MacCrimmon, M., & Tillers, P. (2012). The dynamics of judicial proof: computation, logic, and common sense 94. Physica.
• Pardo, M. S., & Allen, R. J. (2008). Juridical proof and the best explanation. Law and Philosophy, 27(3), 223-268.
• Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1986). Evidence evaluation in complex decision making. Journal of personality and social psychology, 51(2), 242.
• Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1988). Explanation- based decision making: Effects of memory structure on judgment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14(3), 521.
• Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1992). Explaining the evidence: Tests of the Story Model for juror decision making. Journal of personality and social psychology, 62(2), 189-206.
• Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1993a). Reasoning in explanation-based decision making. Cognition, 49(1-2), 123-163.
• Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1993b). The story model for juror decision-making. In R. Hastie (Ed.), Inside the Juror: The Psychology of Juror Decision Making. Cambridge University Press.
• Prakken, H. (2014). On direct and indirect probabilistic reasoning in legal proof. Law, Probability and Risk, 13(3-4), 327-337.
• Prakken, H., & Kaptein, H. (2016). Legal evidence and proof: statistics, stories, logic. Routledge.
• Roberts, P., Aitken, C., Taroni, F., & Biedermann, A. (2013). PRACTITIONER GUIDE NO 3: The Logic of Forensic Proof: Inferential Reasoning in Criminal Evidence and Forensic Science. In: London: R. Stat. Soc. http://www. maths. ed. ac. uk/∼ cgga/Guide- 3-WEB. pdf.
• Schweizer, M. (2014). Comparing holistic and atomistic evaluation of evidence. Law, Probability and Risk, 13(1), 65-89.
• Thagard, P. R. (1978). The best explanation: Criteria for theory choice. The journal of philosophy, 75(2), 76-92.
• Wagenaar, W. A. (2011). Anchored narratives: A theory of judicial reasoning, and its consequences. Psychology, law, and criminal justice, 267-285.
• Wigmore, J. H. (1913). The Principles of Judicial Proof: As Given by Logic, Psychology, and General Experience, and Illustrated in Judicial Trials, Little, Brown, 1913.