Selected publications (forensic)
NOTE: you can find a guided reading list at forensictranscription.net.au.
Fraser, H. in press. Forensic transcription: The case for transcription as a dedicated area of linguistic science. In M. Coulthard, A. Johnson, & R. Sousa-Silva (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics. Routledge.
Fraser, H. 2019. The reliability of voice recognition by ear witnesses: An overview of research findings. Language and Law/Linguagem E Direito, 6(2), 1–9.
Fraser, H. 2019. Don’t believe your ears: ‘Enhancing’ forensic audio can mislead juries in criminal trials. The Conversation.
Fraser, H. 2019. Enhancing and priming at a voir dire: can we be sure the judge reached the right conclusion? Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences. http://doi.org/10.1080/00450618.2019.1695939
Fraser, H. 2019. “Enhancing” forensic audio: what if all that really gets enhanced is the credibility of a misleading transcript? Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences. http://doi.org/10.1080/00450618.2018.1561948
Fraser, H. 2019. The role of native speakers in LADO: Are we missing a more important question. In Patrick, P. L., Schmid, M. S., & Zwaan, K. (Eds.) Language Analysis for the Determination of Origin. Springer. pre-publication version – read but don’t quote!
French, P., & Fraser, H. 2018. Why “ad hoc experts” should not provide transcripts of indistinct forensic audio, and a proposal for a better approach. Criminal Law Journal, 42, 298–302.
Fraser, H. 2018. Covert recordings used as evidence in criminal trials: concerns of Australian linguists. Judicial Officers Bulletin, 30(6), 53–56.
Fraser, H. 2018. ‘Enhancing’ forensic audio: false beliefs and their effect in criminal trials. Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences.
Fraser, H. 2018 Review of ‘Forensic communication in theory and practice’, edited by Orletti and Mariottini. Language and Law/Linguagem e Direito 5(1), 103-108
Fraser, H. 2018. Forensic transcription: How confident false beliefs about language and speech threaten the right to a fair trial in Australia. Australian Journal of Linguistics
Fraser, H. 2018. Thirty years is long enough: It’s time to create a process that ensures covert recordings used as evidence in court are interpreted reliably and fairly. Journal of Judicial Administration 27:30 95-104
Fraser, H. 2018. Real forensic experts should pay more attention to the dangers posed by “ad hoc experts” (Guest Editorial). Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences 50(2) 125-128
Fraser, H. 2018. “Assisting” listeners to hear words that aren’t there: dangers in using police transcripts of indistinct covert recordings. Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences 50(2) 129-139
Fraser, H. 2017. How interpretation of indistinct covert recordings can lead to wrongful conviction: A case study and recommendations for reform. In R. Levy, et al (Eds.), New directions for law in Australia. Canberra: ANU Press p.191-200
Burridge, K. 2017. The dark side of mondegreens: How a simple mishearing can lead to wrongful conviction. The Conversation.
Fraser, H. 2015. Transcription of indistinct covert recordings used as evidence in criminal trials: Problems and solutions. In H. Selby & I. Freckelton, eds. Expert Evidence. Thomson Reuters.
Fraser, H., 2014. Transcription of indistinct forensic recordings: Problems and solutions from the perspective of phonetic science. Language and Law/Linguagem e Direito, 1(2), pp.5–21.
Fraser, H. & Stevenson, B., 2014. The power and persistence of contextual priming: More risks in using police transcripts to aid jurors’ perception of poor quality covert recordings. International Journal of Evidence and Proof. 18 (3) 205-229.
Fraser, H. 2013. Covert recordings as evidence in court: The return of police “verballing?” The Conversation.
Fraser, H., 2013. Hard-to-hear covert recordings used as evidence in criminal cases: Have we brought back police ‘verballing’? In K. Richards & J. Tauri, eds. Crime Justice and Social Democracy: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference Volume 1. Brisbane: Queensland University of Technology, pp. 67–76.
Fraser, H., 2012. Bayes and beyond: The complex challenges of LADO and their relevance to forensic speaker comparison. In Donohue, C., Ishihara, S. & Steed, W. eds. Quantitative approaches to problems in linguistics: Studies in honour of Phil Rose, Munich: LINCOM Europa.
Fraser, H., 2011. Language analysis for the determination of origin (LADO). In C. A. Chapelle, ed. Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Wiley-Blackwell.
Fraser, H., 2011. The role of linguists and native speakers in language analysis for the determination of speaker origin: A response to Tina Cambier-Langeveld. International Journal of Speech Language and the Law, 18(1), pp.121–130.
Fraser, H., Stevenson, B. & Marks, T. 2011. Interpretation of a Crisis Call: Persistence of a primed perception of a disputed utterance. International Journal of Speech Language and the Law, 18(2), pp.261–292.
Fraser, H., 2009. The role of “educated native speakers” in providing language analysis for the determination of the origin of asylum seekers. International Journal of Speech Language and the Law, 16(1), pp.113–138.
Language and National Origin Group, 2004. Guidelines for the use of language analysis in relation to questions of national origin in refugee cases. International Journal of Speech Language and the Law, 11(2), pp.1–6.
Fraser, H., 2003. Issues in transcription: factors affecting the reliability of transcripts as evidence in legal cases. International Journal of Speech Language and the Law, 10(2), pp.203–226. NOTE: The explanation of why the current system is not good remain useful, but I have changed the recommendations for a better approach