Forensic face matching: Procedures and application

Abstract

Forensic face matching evidence has been presented in UK courts for over 30 years to provide crucial identification evidence in criminal investigations. To be admissible as evidence in UK courts, this evidence must be conducted by a suitably qualified expert using scientifically validated procedures. Contrary to this notion, however, the field has been largely self-regulated, with little empirical investigation into the validity of face matching procedures, with extensive criticism of forensic face matching procedures in the scientific literature. Practitioner working groups are now addressing these criticisms and standardising working practices, but further effort is required to ensure that the procedures used for forensic face matching are reliable and the limitations known. This chapter will provide a critical analysis of the forensic face matching procedures used in the UK and internationally by forensic face examiners, alongside studies and case examples that have challenged and tested the reliability and accuracy of these procedures.

Facial comparison behaviour of forensic facial examiners

“…Guidelines for facial image comparison suggest an analytical comparison of features (FISWG, 2018). While the implementation of this process differs both across and within organisations (Moreton, 2021), it typically involves the listwise examination of facial features to determine similarities and differences (see, e.g., Towler et al, 2017). In this final task, we apply an abbreviated version of the feature list that is typically utilised by the facial examiners who participated in this study in their day‐to‐day work.…”

“…This is a rigorous and structured process that is carried out by forensic facial examiners, who are specialists employed by the police, government departments and forensic service providers (Moreton et al, 2019). These examiners produce written reports to inform investigations and legal proceedings (see, e.g., Moreton, 2021; Norell et al, 2015; Phillips et al, 2018). In these high‐stakes environments, facial comparison is therefore a critically important task, whereby an incorrect decision could have potentially life‐changing consequences such as the incrimination and subsequent incarceration of an innocent member of society, or a failure to apprehend a criminal.…”

Understanding face matching

“…Consideration of the features that are used for matching decisions also raises the question of whether the matchmismatch dissociation can be linked to how faces are searched for information. It is possible, for example, that classification of matches might entail an exhaustive search to accumulate information, whereas information search in mismatch pairs can be terminated early, following the detection of a highly individuating difference between faces (e.g., scars or blemishes; see Moreton, 2021;Towler et al, 2017). Response time and eye movement data indicate that matches and mismatches cannot be distinguished easily along these lines (see, for example, Fysh & Bindemann, 2018;Özbek & Bindemann, 2010).…”

Psychological and Legal Aspects of Verification and Detection of Lies during Polygraph Examination

“…According to the emotional model of instrumental lie detection, N. Marsili and R. Moreton identifies verbal messages that are lies if they meet the following criteria: 1. information possessed by a person, is subjectively assessed by him/her as true, that is such that corresponds to reality; 2. verbally reproduced information is subjectively perceived by a person as not corresponding to reality; 3. the transfer of information by a person is initiated with the aim of deliberately creating in the interlocutor an incorrect, distorted view of reality (Marsili, 2020;Moreton, 2020).…”