, Volume 26, Issue 3, pp 325–353 | Cite as

Solving a Murder Case by Asking Critical Questions: An Approach to Fact-Finding in Terms of Argumentation and Story Schemes

  • Floris Bex
  • Bart Verheij


In this paper, we look at reasoning with evidence and facts in criminal cases. We show how this reasoning may be analysed in a dialectical way by means of critical questions that point to typical sources of doubt. We discuss critical questions about the evidential arguments adduced, about the narrative accounts of the facts considered, and about the way in which the arguments and narratives are connected in an analysis. Our treatment shows how two different types of knowledge, represented as schemes, play a role in reasoning with evidence: argumentation schemes and story schemes.


Argumentation schemes Case-study Evidence Legal reasoning Narrative 


  1. Anderson, T.J., D.A. Schum, and W.L. Twining. 2005. Analysis of evidence, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bennett, W.L., and M.S. Feldman. 1981. Reconstructing reality in the courtroom: Justice and judgment in American culture. London: Methuen-Tavistock.Google Scholar
  3. Bex, F.J. 2009. Analysing stories using schemes. In Legal evidence and proof: Statistics, stories, logic, ed. H. Kaptein, H. Prakken, and B. Verheij, 93–116. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing.Google Scholar
  4. Bex, F.J. 2011. Arguments, stories and criminal evidence: A formal hybrid theory. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bex, F.J., T. Bench-Capon, and K. Atkinson. 2009. Did he jump or was he pushed? Abductive practical reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law 17(2): 79–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bex, F.J., P.J. van Koppen, H. Prakken, and B. Verheij. 2010. A hybrid formal theory of arguments, stories and criminal evidence. Artificial Intelligence and Law 18(2): 123–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bex, F.J., H. Prakken, C. Reed, and D.N. Walton. 2003. Towards a formal account of reasoning about evidence: Argumentation schemes and generalisations. Artificial Intelligence and Law 11: 125–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bex, F.J., H. Prakken, and B. Verheij. 2006. Anchored narratives in reasoning about evidence. In Legal knowledge and information systems. JURIX 2006: The nineteenth annual conference, ed. T. Van Engers, 11–20. Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
  9. Bex, F.J., and B. Verheij. 2009. Het Onderbouwen van een Feitelijk Oordeel in een Strafzaak: Methode, casus, aanbevelingen (Grounding a judgement about the facts in a criminal case: Method, case, recommendations). In Reizen met Mijn Rechter: Psychologie van het Recht, ed. P.J. van Koppen, H. Merkelbach, M. Jelicic, and J.W. de Keijser, 935–952. Deventer: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  10. Bex, F.J., and Verheij, B. 2010. Story schemes for argumentation about the facts of a crime. In Proceedings of the 2010 AAAI fall symposium on computational narratives. AAAI technical report FS-10-04. Menlo Park (CA): AAAI Press.Google Scholar
  11. Bex, F.J., and B. Verheij. 2011a. Arguments, stories and evidence: critical questions for fact-finding. In Proceedings of the 7th conference of the international society for the study of argumentation (ISSA 2010), eds. F.H. van Eemeren, B. Garssen, D. Godden, and G. Mitchell, 71–84. Amsterdam: Rozenberg/Sic Sat.Google Scholar
  12. Bex, F.J., and B. Verheij. 2011b. Legal shifts in the process of proof. In Proceedings of the 13th ICAIL, Pittsburgh, USA, 11–20. New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  13. Bex, F.J., and Walton, D. 2010. Burdens and standards of proof for inference to the best explanation. In Legal knowledge and information systems. JURIX 2010: The twenty-third annual conference. Frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications 223, ed. R.G.F. Winkels, 37–46. Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
  14. Cohen, L.J. 1977. The probable and the provable. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Feteris, E.T. 1999. What went wrong in the ballpoint case? In Complex cases: Perspectives on the Netherlands criminal justice system, ed. M. Malsch, and J.F. Nijboer, 11–26. Amsterdam: Thela Thesis.Google Scholar
  16. Feteris, E.T. 2008. Weighing and balancing in the justification of judicial decisions. Informal Logic 28: 20–30.Google Scholar
  17. Finlayson, M.A., W. Richards, and P.H. Winston. 2010. Computational models of narrative: Review of a workshop. AI Magazine 31(2): 97–100.Google Scholar
  18. Freeman, J.B. 1991. Dialectics and the macrostructure of arguments: A theory of argument structure. Berlin: Foris Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Freeman, J.B. 2006. Systematizing Toulmin’s warrants: An epistemic approach. In Arguing on the Toulmin model. New essays in argument analysis and evaluation, ed. D.L. Hitchcock, and B. Verheij, 87–100. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  20. Garssen, B. 2001. Argument schemes. In Crucial concepts in argumentation theory, ed. F. van Eemeren, 81–99. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Govier, T., ed. 1999. Reasoning with pros and cons. Conductive arguments revisited. In The philosophy of argument. Newport: Vale Press.Google Scholar
  22. Hage, J.C. 1996. A Theory of legal reasoning and a logic to match. Artificial Intelligence and Law 4: 199–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hage, J.C. 1997. Reasoning with rules. An essay on legal reasoning and its underlying logic. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  24. Hitchcock, D.L. 2010. The generation of argumentation schemes. In Dialectics, dialogue and argumentation. An examination of douglas walton’s theories of reasoning and argument, ed. C.A. Reed, and C. Tindale, 157–166. London: College Publications.Google Scholar
  25. Josephson, J.R. 2002. On the proof dynamics of inference to the best explanation. In The dynamics of judicial proof—computation, logic and common sense, ed. M. MacCrimmon, and P. Tillers, 287–306. Berlin: Physica Verlag.Google Scholar
  26. Kienpointner, M. 1992. Alltagslogik: struktur and funktion von argumentations-mustern. Stuttgart: Fromman-Holzboog.Google Scholar
  27. Naess, A. 1978. Elementaire argumentatieleer. (Elementary theory of argumentation). Baarn: Ambo.Google Scholar
  28. Nijboer, J.F., and A. Sennef. 1999. Justification. In Complex cases: Perspectives on the Netherlands criminal justice system, ed. M. Malsch, and J.F. Nijboer, 11–26. Amsterdam: Thela Thesis.Google Scholar
  29. Pardo, M.S., and R.J. Allen. 2007. Juridical proof and the best explanation. Law and Philosophy 27: 223–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pennington, N., and R. Hastie. 1993. Reasoning in explanation-based decision making. Cognition 49(1–2): 123–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Perelman, C., and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca. 1971. The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation, 2nd edn, (trans: J. Wilkinson and P. Weaver). Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press. (First published, as La Nouvelle Rhetorique, in 1958).Google Scholar
  32. Pollock, J.L. 1987. Defeasible reasoning. Cognitive Science 11(4): 481–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Prakken, H. 2010. On the nature of argument schemes. In Dialectics, dialogue and argumentation. An examination of Douglas Walton’s theories of reasoning and argument, ed. C.A. Reed, and C. Tindale, 167–185. London: College Publications.Google Scholar
  34. Prakken, H. 2011. Argumentation without arguments. Argumentation 25: 171–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Propp, V. 1968. the morphology of the folktale. Austin (TX): University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  36. Reed, C., D. Walton, and F. Macagno. 2007. Argument diagramming in logic, law and artificial intelligence. Knowledge Engineering Review 22(1): 87–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rumelhart, D.E. 1975. Notes on a schema for stories. In Representation and understanding: Studies in cognitive science, ed. D.G. Bobrow, and A. Collins. New York (NY): Academic Press.Google Scholar
  38. Schank, R.C., and R.P. Abelson. 1977. Scripts, plans, goals and understanding: An inquiry into human knowledge structures. Hillsdale (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  39. Schank, R.C. 1986. Explanations patterns: Understanding mechanically and creatively. Hillsdale (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  40. Thagard, P. 2004. Causal inference in legal decision making: Explanatory coherence vs. bayesian networks. Applied Artificial Intelligence 18(3): 231–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Toolan, M. 2001. Narrative: a critical linguistic introduction, 2nd ed. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  42. Toulmin, S.E. 1958. The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Twining, W.L. 1999. Necessary but dangerous? Generalizations and narrative in argumentation about ‘facts’ in criminal process. In Complex cases: Perspectives on the Netherlands criminal justice system, ed. J.F. Nijboer, and M. Malsch, 69–98. Amsterdam: Thela Thesis.Google Scholar
  44. van den Braak, S.W. 2010. Sensemaking Software for Crime Analysis. Doctoral dissertation, Department of Information and Computing Sciences, Utrecht University.Google Scholar
  45. van Eemeren, F.H., and R. Grootendorst. 1992. Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: a pragma-dialectical perspective. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  46. van Eemeren, F.H. 1994. The Study of argumentation as normative pragmatics. In Studies in pragma-dialectics, ed. F.H. van Eemeren, and R. Grootendorst, 3–8. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar
  47. Verheij, B. 1996. Rules, reasons, arguments. Formal studies of argumentation and defeat. Maastricht: Dissertation Universiteit Maastricht.Google Scholar
  48. Verheij, B. 2000. Dialectical argumentation as a heuristic for courtroom decision making. In Rationality, information and progress in law and psychology. Liber Amicorum Hans F. Crombag, ed. P.J. van Koppen, and N. Roos, 203–226. Maastricht: Metajuridica Publications.Google Scholar
  49. Verheij, B. 2003. Dialectical argumentation with argumentation schemes: An approach to legal logic. Artificial Intelligence and Law 11(2): 167–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Verheij, B. 2005a. Evaluating arguments based on Toulmin’s scheme. Argumentation 19(3): 347–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Verheij, B. 2005b. Virtual arguments: On the design of argument assistants for lawyers and other arguers. The Hague: T.M.C. Asser Press.Google Scholar
  52. Verheij, B. 2009. The Toulmin argument model in artificial intelligence. Or: How semi-formal, defeasible argumentation schemes creep into logic. In Argumentation in artificial intelligence, ed. I. Rahwan, and G. Simari, 219–238. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Verheij, B., and F.J. Bex. 2009. Accepting the truth of a story about the facts of a criminal case. In Legal evidence and proof: Statistics, stories, logic, ed. H. Kaptein, H. Prakken, and B. Verheij, 161–193. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing.Google Scholar
  54. Wagenaar, W.A., P.J. van Koppen, and H.F.M. Crombag. 1993. Anchored narratives. The psychology of criminal evidence. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
  55. Walton, D. 1996. Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Mahwah (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  56. Walton, D.N. 2001. Abductive, presumptive and plausible arguments. Informal Logic 21(2): 141–172.Google Scholar
  57. Walton, D.N. 2002. Legal argumentation and evidence. University Park (Pennsylvania): Penn. State University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Walton, D.N., C.A. Reed, and F. Macagno. 2008. Argumentation schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wellman, C. 1971. Challenge and response. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Wigmore, J.H. 1931. The principles of judicial proof or the process of proof as given by logic, psychology, and general experience, and illustrated in judicial trials, 2nd ed. Boston (Massachusetts): Little, Brown and Company.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Argumentation Research Group, School of ComputingUniversity of DundeeDundeeUK
  2. 2.Department of Artificial IntelligenceUniversity of GroningenGroningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations