| A hierarchy of propositions: deciding which level to address in casework R Cook, IW Evett, G Jackson, PJ Jones, JA Lambert Science & Justice 38 (4), 231-239, 1998 | 549 | 1998 |
| A model for case assessment and interpretation R Cook, IW Evett, G Jackson, PJ Jones, JA Lambert Science and Justice 38 (3), 151-156, 1998 | 361 | 1998 |
| The impact of the principles of evidence interpretation on the structure and content of statements LJAMCS Evett IW, Jackson G Science and Justice 40, 233-239, 2000 | 280* | 2000 |
| More on the hierarchy of propositions: exploring the distinction between explanations and propositions JGLJA Evett IW Science and Justice 40, 3-10, 2000 | 217 | 2000 |
| The nature of forensic science opinion – a possible framework to guide thinking and practice in investigations and in court proceedings G Jackson, P Jones, G Booth, C Champod, I Evett Science & Justice 46, 33-44, 2006 | 190 | 2006 |
| Fundamentals of Probability and Statistical Evidence in Criminal Proceedings: Guidance for Judges, Lawyers, Forensic Scientists and Expert Witnesses RPJG Aitken C Royal Statistical Society, 2010 | 174 | 2010 |
| Interpreting small quantities of DNA: the hierarchy of propositions and the use of Bayesian networks WJCC Evett IW, Gill PD, Jackson G Journal of Forensic Sciences 47 (3), 520-530, 2002 | 157 | 2002 |
| Expressing evaluative opinions: a position statement C Aitken, CEH Berger, JS Buckleton, C Champod, J Curran, AP Dawid, ... Science & justice 51 (1), 1-2, 2011 | 146 | 2011 |
| Evidence evaluation: A response to the court of appeal judgment in R v T CEH Berger, J Buckleton, C Champod, IW Evett, G Jackson Science & Justice 51 (2), 43-49, 2011 | 145 | 2011 |
| Forensic science evidence in question M Redmayne, P Roberts, C Aitken, G Jackson Criminal Law Review 5, 347-356, 2011 | 90 | 2011 |
| Case pre-assessment and review in a two-way transfer case R Cook, IW Evett, G Jackson, PJ Jones, JA Lambert Science & Justice 39 (2), 103-111, 1999 | 85 | 1999 |
| Establishing the most appropriate databases for addressing source level propositions EIWJG Champod C Science and Justice 44, 153-164, 2004 | 76 | 2004 |
| Case Assessment and Interpretation of Expert Evidence – Guidance for Judges, Lawyers, Forensic Scientists and Expert Witnesses ACGGRP Jackson G. Royal Statistical Society, London, 2015 | 56* | 2015 |
| Recovery of transferred fibres CN Lowrie, G Jackson Forensic science international 50 (1), 111-119, 1991 | 48 | 1991 |
| DNA profiling: a discussion of the issues relating to the reporting of very small match probabilities JGLJA Evett IW, Foreman LA Criminal Law Review, 341-355, 2000 | 43 | 2000 |
| Secondary transfer of fibres LC Jackson G Forensic Science International 64, 73-82, 1994 | 43* | 1994 |
| Helping formulate propositions in forensic DNA analysis. JGCJM Buckleton J., Bright J., Taylor D., Evett I., Hicks T. Science and Justice 54 (4), 258-261, 2014 | 38 | 2014 |
| The incidence and position of melanocytic nevi for the purposes of forensic image comparison S Black, B MacDonald-MacMillan, X Mallett, C Rynn, G Jackson International Journal of Legal Medicine, 2013 | 29 | 2013 |
| Use of data to inform expert evaluative opinion in the comparison of hand images — the importance of scars G Jackson, S Black International Journal of Legal Medicine, 2013 | 24 | 2013 |
| Movement of fibres between working areas as a result of routine examination of garments JGFM Moore JE Journal of the Forensic Science Society 26, 433-440, 1986 | 18 | 1986 |
Christophe ChampodSchool of Criminal Justice, University of LausanneEmail verificata su unil.ch