Selected publications (forensic)

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 trialsAustralian Journal of Forensic Sciences.

Fraser, H. (in press) Review of ‘Forensic communication in theory and practice’, edited by Orletti and Mariottini. Language and Law/Linguagem e Direito

Fraser, H. (in press) 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. (in press) 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.

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

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 scienceLanguage 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. 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.