Bloodstain pattern classification: Accuracy, effect of contextual information and the role of analyst characteristics

Osborne, Nikola K.P.; Taylor, Michael; Healey, Matthew; Zajac, Rachel

doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2015.12.005

Cited by 24 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This effect has since been replicated with respect to fingerprints (Stevenage & Bennett, 2017) and similar effects have been found in many other forensic disciplines—including arson investigation (Bieber, 2012), forensic anthropology (Nakhaeizadeh, Dror, & Morgan, 2014), crime scene investigation (van den Eeden, de Poot, & van Koppen, 2016), bloodstain pattern analysis (Osborne, Taylor, Healey, & Zajac, 2016), and complex DNA analysis (Dror & Hampikian, 2011), among others (for reviews, see Cooper & Meterko, 2019; Kukucka, 2018).…”

Section: Sources Of Biasmentioning

confidence: 59%

The impact of evidence lineups on fingerprint expert decisions

Kukucka

Dror

et al. 2020

Applied Cognitive Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary Forensic examiners routinely compare a crime‐relevant mark of unknown origin against a single suspect's sample, which may create an expectation that the two will match. We tested how embedding the suspect's sample among known‐innocent fillers (i.e., an evidence lineup) affects expert decision‐making. Experienced fingerprint examiners (N = 43) compared crime‐relevant marks against either individual suspect fingerprints (i.e., the standard procedure) or arrays of fingerprints (i.e., evidence lineups), with a matching fingerprint either present or absent. Evidence lineups promoted conservative decision‐making, as evidenced by fewer correct IDs and a higher rate of inconclusive judgments. Though errors were rare, evidence lineups also occasionally revealed errors that would have otherwise gone undetected. Our findings thus support arguments that evidence lineups can expose fraud, identify flawed methodologies, and curb overconfidence. The potential benefits and challenges of implementing evidence lineups in forensic laboratories are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Sources Of Biasmentioning

confidence: 59%

The impact of evidence lineups on fingerprint expert decisions

Kukucka

Dror

et al. 2020

Applied Cognitive Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…I am concerned, however, about the authors' presentation of some of the literature relating to bias in forensic science. In particular, the authors have cited several studies conducted by myself and my colleagues' (2)(3)(4)(5)(6), but have either misinterpreted our findings, or have misused the citations to support their point. The statements in question are in the following paragraph (p. 3):…”

Section: Sirmentioning

confidence: 88%

“…Research examining blinding approaches is still rather novel: in our review of the literature, we found relatively few studies, apart from Dror's, that have tested similar blinding procedures. These studies demonstrated mixed results [ (2)(3)(4)].…”

Section: Sirmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Commentary on: Lockhart JJ, Satya‐murti S. Diagnosing crime and diagnosing disease: bias reduction strategies in the forensic and clinical sciences. J Forensic Sci https://doi.org/10.1111/1556‐4029.13453. Epub 2017 Feb 23.

Osborne

2017

Journal of Forensic Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…All other contextual but potentially contaminating information (e.g., crime scene information) is withheld until a later stage when it is “unmasked.” Research examining blinding approaches is still rather novel: In our review of the literature, we found relatively few studies, apart from Dror's, that have tested similar blinding procedures. These studies demonstrated mixed results . So far, we have outlined forensic blinding in this section; we will consider the scope of clinical blinding later in this review.…”

Section: Recent Approaches 2000–2016mentioning

confidence: 99%

Diagnosing Crime and Diagnosing Disease: Bias Reduction Strategies in the Forensic and Clinical Sciences

Lockhart¹,

Satya‐Murti²

2017

Journal of Forensic Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cognitive effort is an essential part of both forensic and clinical decision-making. Errors occur in both fields because the cognitive process is complex and prone to bias. We performed a selective review of full-text English language literature on cognitive bias leading to diagnostic and forensic errors. Earlier work (1970-2000) concentrated on classifying and raising bias awareness. Recently (2000-2016), the emphasis has shifted toward strategies for "debiasing." While the forensic sciences have focused on the control of misleading contextual cues, clinical debiasing efforts have relied on checklists and hypothetical scenarios. No single generally applicable and effective bias reduction strategy has emerged so far. Generalized attempts at bias elimination have not been particularly successful. It is time to shift focus to the study of errors within specific domains, and how to best communicate uncertainty in order to improve decision making on the part of both the expert and the trier-of-fact.

show abstract

Bloodstain pattern classification: Accuracy, effect of contextual information and the role of analyst characteristics

Cited by 24 publications

References 23 publications

The impact of evidence lineups on fingerprint expert decisions

The impact of evidence lineups on fingerprint expert decisions

Commentary on: Lockhart JJ, Satya‐murti S. Diagnosing crime and diagnosing disease: bias reduction strategies in the forensic and clinical sciences. J Forensic Sci https://doi.org/10.1111/1556‐4029.13453. Epub 2017 Feb 23.

Diagnosing Crime and Diagnosing Disease: Bias Reduction Strategies in the Forensic and Clinical Sciences

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About