PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "We found 29 studies covering 14 different forensic disciplines (e.g., fingerprint analysis, handwriting analysis). The results of the studies were very consistent: even well-trained, well-intentioned forensic scientists are not immune to confirmation bias, which can lead to inaccurate analyses. The studies further supported several measures scientists and laboratories can take to protect against confirmation bias. Many of these protections involve limiting the amount of unnecessary information that scientists receive. For example, a scientist does not need to know that a suspect confessed in order to compare that suspect’s handwriting sample to handwriting left at the scene of a crime. In fact, knowing that the suspect confessed might inadvertently influence the scientist to incorrectly conclude that the samples match. Another protection strategy is to use a forensic evidence lineup, much like an eyewitness lineup. If a scientist directly compares a crime scene fingerprint to a known suspect’s fingerprint, they might incorrectly conclude that the prints match. Embedding a suspect’s fingerprint in a lineup of other fingerprints can ensure that the scientist is not inadvertently influenced by the knowledge of which print belongs to the suspect. The Innocence Project encourages forensic science laboratories to adopt procedures like these that protect the integrity of forensic evidence."
JOURNAL ARTICLE: “Cognitive bias research in forensic science: A systematic review,” co-authored by Innocence Project staff members Glinda Cooper, director of science and research, and Vanessa Meterko, research analyst, published by Forensic Science International in April 2019. (Thanks to Dr. Mike Bowers (CSI DDSL Forensics and Law in Focus) for bringing this important article to our attention. HL);
GIST: (Short Summary): "Can confirmation bias (the tendency for people to seek out and remember information that matches their initial impressions or beliefs and to discount contradictory information) affect the evaluation of forensic evidence? If so, are there ways to reduce its impact in casework? Those are the questions we set out to answer in authoring, “Cognitive bias research in forensic science: A systematic review.” To answer these questions, we gathered all studies we could find about confirmation bias in forensic science. We found 29 studies covering 14 different forensic disciplines (e.g., fingerprint analysis, handwriting analysis). The results of the studies were very consistent: even well-trained, well-intentioned forensic scientists are not immune to confirmation bias, which can lead to inaccurate analyses. The studies further supported several measures scientists and laboratories can take to protect against confirmation bias. Many of these protections involve limiting the amount of unnecessary information that scientists receive. For example, a scientist does not need to know that a suspect confessed in order to compare that suspect’s handwriting sample to handwriting left at the scene of a crime. In fact, knowing that the suspect confessed might inadvertently influence the scientist to incorrectly conclude that the samples match. Another protection strategy is to use a forensic evidence lineup, much like an eyewitness lineup. If a scientist directly compares a crime scene fingerprint to a known suspect’s fingerprint, they might incorrectly conclude that the prints match. Embedding a suspect’s fingerprint in a lineup of other fingerprints can ensure that the scientist is not inadvertently influenced by the knowledge of which print belongs to the suspect. The Innocence Project encourages forensic science laboratories to adopt procedures like these that protect the integrity of forensic evidence."
Access to the full article can
be found here.
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog; | |
