CLPEX Chat Board

So many good things have been mentioned that it’s hard to respond to them all. First I’d like to recognize Dave’s mention of the importance of accurate results. This seems so obvious but it’s easy to be drawn away from it with discussions of other elements. There’s several ways to define accuracy but many science books say that accuracy has 2 elements, reliability and validity. Our industry is big on the reliability element (by recognizing that we need to reproduce our results) but we don’t seem to talk about the validity element very much. I’ve seen validity describe as showing that the correct logic, accepted principles, and appropriate tests were used to show that the method does what it’s suppose to do.

A good friend of mine describes it like this. Let’s say you have a toaster that constantly burns the toast. So you have someone else test it. They find that it does burn the toast time after time. You have reproduced the conclusion and proved that the toaster is reliable. Yes, it’s reliable but it didn’t produce accurate results (it didn’t work the way we wanted it to work). This shows that reproducing a conclusion isn’t the best QA measure because you can reproduce a conclusion but that doesn’t guarantee the conclusion is accurate. To insure accuracy we also need to show that the results are valid (that we used appropriate tests and procedures). With the toaster scenario, maybe the correct tests weren’t performed, maybe someone doing a technical review (or peer review) may look at this and say “Did you test the heating element?”, “Did you test the timer?”, “Were there any sensors on this unit to test?”

Here’s my point, people are looking at biases interfering with accurate results. I recognize the potential for bias but even Dror and Charlton showed that this is only a problem in latent prints with minimal information. I agree with others who’ve said that this is a low percentage of our comparisons. Implementing BV (blind verification) when it’s not needed (didn’t someone say the FBI uses it in 70% of cases?) is just a waste of time. It makes it look like you have QA measures when you really don’t. BV diminished bias but because it only reproduces the result, it doesn’t guarantee accurate results. So, BV is useful but it’s not the best QA measure. I’ve been trying to list several QA measures and so far I’ve come up with about 10 of them (I won’t list them because this is already longer than I intended). Each QA measure tests for different things but the ultimate scientific QA measure is independent peer review (many people call this a technical review) which looks at whether the conclusions are reproducible and valid. This is the best measure of accurate results. One thing that I’ve realized is that many of us use terms differently so just because someone says they do a technical review doesn’t mean that they do it in this fashion. I do think SWGFAST’s QA measures fall in line with how I’m defining it.

One question becomes, will SWGFAST come up with a guideline of when to use BV? I hope they go further and recognize a lot of different forms of testing and implement guidelines of when it’s appropriate to use each test.

I’d also like to talk a little about the time involved in all these testing methods. The defense seems to be saying, “we don’t know how hard of a comparison it was (to know if BV was needed) because you didn’t document it.” Someone also mentioned that other disciplines don’t use BV. Scientifically speaking, I think our conclusions are always open for additional testing to be done (ours as well as other disciplines). The defense ALWAYS has the option of hiring someone to re-evaluate forensic conclusions. This defense expert could do a blind verification, or better yet, a complete peer review. Wouldn’t this be considered more independent than testing the conclusion in-house. It’s an industry standard that all our ID’s need to be verified. This is far above scientific standards (which doesn’t call for verification but leaves information open for testing if anyone wants to do it). I think we test our conclusions because we want accurate conclusions. I agree that we all need to understand different testing methods and implement them as we find it necessary (and low staffing or how long it takes shouldn’t be the reasons we don’t do it). But I think that if the defense doesn’t have faith in the conclusion then hire someone to look at it.

In the N.H. case, I think documentation was an issue because it was in their operating procedures to do contemporaneous documentation. The issue may not have been that documentation was needed but that their operating procedures weren’t followed. It also said in the courts decision that the examiner said that BV was ideal. Maybe the judge felt like if the examiner thought it was ideal then it should have also been done. On a superficial level, the FBI’s use of BV makes it also look like it should have been used. I don’t know how I would have answered this in court myself, probably very similarly, but now having time to think about it I’d give a different answer. I think I’d now say, “BV is useful when the contrast is low, the amount of information in a latent is minimal, when red flags exist, when a comparison is complex, when bias could be an issue, etc. It may have been useful in the Mayfield case because the latent in that case had some of these issues, but in this case these were not issues. I had plenty of information to make an identification and BV wasn’t needed. QA measures to insure accurate results were used in this case.” I haven’t seen this print, I’m just speculating and thinking that some form of verification was probably used. So even though documentation and BV are issues in this case, there’s reasons why they might not be considered so important in other cases, at least that’s what I’m hoping.

Regarding Lisa question about contemporaneous documentation, I see positive aspects and negative aspects. I know of people who chart out points of what they see prior to doing a comparison. An afis tracing gives you this information also. The way I’ve seen it done it’s not too time consuming but is it really necessary or valuable? The FBI examiner in the Mayfield case had a tracing that showed what he initially saw prior to a comparison but it didn’t prevent bias from creeping into the picture. I think “comprehensive documentation” of why it’s an ID (not just a chart enlargement) would be more valuable than “contemporaneous documentation” and this could be done whenever someone asks for it (so it wouldn’t create huge backlogs).

So I'm curious, why does written documentation scare folks? Is it just the increased work, or are folks worried about creating cross-exam fodder?

[/quote]

Lisa, for me it is neither. As a trainer, I am trying to urge the best approach with our new people, but my exposure to the other disciplines reveals a lack of consistency in what defense attorneys and courts want. Latent print examination involves the analysis and comparison of images, and we document these images with images. Yet these visuals now seem to be inadequate, so suggestions are made for a more complete narrative notations of the examination process. Yet in firearms, narratives and sketches were considered inadequate so documentation is now with photographs. Old serological documentation was narrative but then deemed inadequate, and replaced by photographs. That practice continued in DNA. If a picture is better documentation in other forensic areas, then why is a picture inadequate for latent prints?

It would seem to me that a photograph is the ideal documentation. I can relate my analysis, comparison and evaluation utilizing this reproduction when requested, and the documentation can be reviewed by any other examiner, prosecution or defense. We have just complied with a court order for a narrative, and while the narrative is quite good and extensive, what is most easily understood is the color coded visuals that accompanied the narrative.

I have never been concerned about providing fodder for cross examination, although I do admit being sensitive to spending extra time providing a narrative that cannot possibly contain all my thought processes, especially when a photograph can. I cannot instruct examination methodology to new people confined to a written format, nor does it appear I can adequately inform the court of all that was observed. Certainly the far too many times I have discovered error have been done by examining the images, not the notes. What may or may not have been included in narrative documentation no matter how extensive would be meaningless.

Michele,

I could be off-base here, but to me, the value in "contemporaneous" recording of the notes is that they help to record your impressions of a difficult print at the time you are making the individualization. It seems to me that if you get called to court years later on an ID that was difficult at the time, the value of the contemporaneous notes would be to go back and refresh your memory of how you got onto the ID. Making the notes when you realize you have to go to court means basically starting back at square one and trying to figure the print out all over again.

I'm not saying this is necessary with every print, but with tricky ones, I'd sure be happy to open my case file and see that I had left myself notes to help me remember how to wrap my head around the print.

Ashbaugh-Ridgeology

“Its purpose is to verify process and objectivity as opposed to only checking results”
(Verify process: Did I follow ACE? After consulting with another examiner do I now feel my objectivity has been compromised based on his comments/opinion?)

“It can be a time of learning and an opportunity to discuss the various aspects of the friction ridge identification science.”
(Sounds like a darn good idea to “consult” with another examiner prior to moving to the “verification process.” Actually it sounds like Ashbaugh encourages open discussion with the verifier (ouch-bias.) Perhaps we should change ACE-V to ACE (C2) V. The C2 would be for consultation by two other examiners where there is open discussion about all features observed in the latent (prior to verification.) I think this reduces the probability of an erroneous identification greatly.

“If one feels his or her objectiveness has been compromised due to the consultation, one should ask someone for verification.”
(This statement is very fascinating! Almost sounds like “V” is not really a requirement of the scientific methodology. And verification is not “required” unless you feel your objectivity has been compromised.)

Have we backed ourselves into a corner unintentionally? Have we placed restrictions on ourselves that may not have been necessary? Could we have gotten by on a second opinion (consultation that was documented?) Do the courts “require” verification by law? If there is a claim of bias by defense, then let them prove it. I’m not disputing that bias is not possible but, prove it.
I’m not sure of the Judge (I believe it was in Texas) who said something to the effect “The prosecution has offer proof time and time again that no two persons have the same fingerprints. Now that burden to prove otherwise should fall on the defense.” Don’t imply bias…prove it.

Hiedi,
I think the confusion is in the wording. I do make notes like that but I’ve never considered them contemporaneous documentation. I just considered it a quick reference sheet.

When I think of contemporaneous documentation, I think of something like this:

It’s a whorl slanted to the left,
my target group is blah, blah, blah, the bifurcation on the left may not really exist, it could be the result of smearing,
didn’t find it,
chose another target group of blah, blah, blah, with an incipient short ridge
didn’t find these characteristics with or without the incipient,
realized I had the latent upside down,
searched again and found both of these target groups in the #7 finger of Jones,
after further examination an individualization was effected, incipient ridge was visible in the known. Etc.

The articles that I’ve read about contemporaneous documentation have stated that the value in writing what you’re seeing as you go, or prior to doing the comparison, is that it stops you from only using information that fits the subject (diminishing the potential for bias). If you labeled something at the beginning then if it doesn’t exist in the exemplar you have to explain it, not simply ignore it.

The reference sheets I use to quickly familiarize myself with the comparison prior to court is made up after I’ve made my conclusion and bias could have been an issue.

Wayne,
In our office many of the examiners use consultation (as well as other things) prior to E (in ACE-V). If we have a difficult latent, we have others explain to us what they are seeing or what evidence they are seeing to explain the existence of a dissimilarity. They aren’t trying to convince the examiner but they may point out a crease or something that the examiner didn’t see. Sometimes they point out where the ridges are changing from black to white. I know this might be easy for many examiners but it’s not easy for me, I always need help with these. We can consult with 1, 2, or 14 examiners prior to coming to our own independent conclusion. Then the verifier is someone other than the consultants.

Lots of stuff here, so let me hit a few points and then try to put together some ideas for Dogma.

I certainly can't speak for all defense attorneys, or even for NACDL. I can talk about where I think things are going and why, but that's just one attorney's opinion. The trial courts will speak with many different voices until a moderate number of these cases work thru the appeals sytem so that the appellate courts speak with a single voice or a few voices.

Michele T. -- what about dictating one's thoughts as one goes -- would it be more viable to have a tape recorder to note one's impressions rather than having to make written notes?

Wayne R. -- it isn't the defense's burden to prove anything about the latent print. The proponent of the evidence (usually the prosecutor) has to prove that the expert is qualified, the science is sound, and the result is reliable. In Daubert, the defense has to make a pretty good case to get over the decades of acceptance of most forensic disciplines, but technically, the prosecutor has to do all the heavy lifting. And, ultimately, the prosecutor has to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Analogies to other forensic disciplines may be a slippery slope. A few weeks back I mentioned the firearms ID seminar I was at in Vegas and that examiner's view about not testifying about a match to the exclusion of all other firearms in the world. Some of the responses I got here were to the effect that fingerprints are not firearms ID, so its ok that we don't use the same language. Cole's been arguing that prints should be more like DNA with an opinon of the statistical likelihood of a match. Do y'all really want to open this can of worms.

And this is coming in the other fields. Confirmation bias issues came up in the Mass. Federal District Court firearms ID challenges. I expect to see the issue keep coming up. To the extent other disciplines claim a supervisory review prevents mis-IDs, the blind review/verification issue is going to come up and keep coming up.

Dogma -- you've got a good point and I'm going to wrestle more with a good answer for you. This post is getting a bit long, so let me start a new one for that topic.

Dogma poses a good challenge. Let me start with a concrete problem. This is an open case, so I'm limited in the specifics I can give.

Client is charged in. and convicted of, a series of sexual assault cases. (I represent the client on appeal in one these cases.) All victims were assaulted in their homes, at night, in dark rooms. No one can identify the assailant and there's no DNA. But there are prints. In this jurisdiction, the crime scene tech who looked for prints is part of the police department's latent print unit. So the same small group of folks take the prints, examine them, and verify them. I have, I think, all of the documentation that was provided to trial counsel as all of the documentation in the case.

Incident takes place on March 4. I have a set of lifts attached to an index card with notations about where the lifts were taken. Police also seized a portable item which the victim thought the defendant touched.

I have a written report by the officer who worked the crime scene dated 4/25 (written more than a month later) describing what he did at the scene and noting that at some time between 3/4 and 4/25 he developed a latent print on a portable item. [Would have been nice to have a date for the development and a more contemporaneous report.]

On 7/7, police identify Mr. Doe as a suspect in another sexual assault case based on fingerprints from that scene. He's arrested on 7/8.

On 7/8 and 7/11, the police took a series of palm print exemplars from my client, Mr. Doe. Some of the exemplars were taken by the examiner who ultimately ID'd the client.

The index card went into a manila envelope with the notes "photographed, charted". then "defendant John Doe on [portable item], left palm, 7/9" then there's a series of notes about elimination prints "negative -- John Smith", etc.

There is a narrative report dated 7/9 in which the examiner states that "I compared the latent impression from the scene at LOCATION and was able to make a positive identification to a possible suspect. The suspect is John Doe of ADDRESS. The left palm of Mr. Doe was identified as being the same that left an impression on PORTABLE ITEM. The positive identification was made positively by comparing the characteristic ridge detail impression and the inked palm impression of Mr. Doe's left hand. The positive identification was verified by Det. SMITH."

There's a handwritten memo by the examiner dated 7/16 listing the open cases, the latents lifted from them, and an asterisk for each where an ID was made to Mr. Doe. The same examiner made the match in all of the cases. The verifying examiner was different in at least two of the cases.

A set of charged enlargements was submitted to the Court. I didn't see a date on the enlargments, but I suspect they were made for trial, a number of years after the original incident and ID.

The examiner and the officer who worked the crime scene testified at trial, several years after the incident and match. The verifying examienr never testified. Client was convicted.

When I got the case, I saw a series of red flags:

In each case, the fingerprint is the sole link between the client and the crime. There's no DNA. The eyewitness descriptions are vague (and inconsistent with the client as to build and facial hair (witness says clean shaven, client had facial hair).

The same examiner made all of the matches, so in later cases may have had some reason to expect the prints to match this suspect. Indeed, the exemplars for this case were made specifically to compare them to the crime scene evidence.

No information about the verifying examiner or verification process is in the record.

So what would I have liked to see?

David G talked about photographs. A contemporaneous chart, even a rough one, would have given me some idea what the examiner saw at the time.

In one of the other cases, the print was taken from a windowsill. It is distorted, consistent with pressure from someone pulling themselves up to the window. Had the report indicated that, it might have been more useful to the prosecutor in defending against the allegation at trial that the print was a fabrication. (And might have prevented defense counsel from even going down that path.) In my case, the print is on an unusual location on the portable object, which makes the client's claim of fabrication a bit more interesting. (And that's going to have to be sorted out in a habeas case.) A mention of that odd placement might have given the prosecutor a heads-up at trial and might have headed off the fabrication allegation.

Trial counsel cross examined the examiner about discrepancies between the latent and exemplar. The examiner had good responses, but a contemporanous note, even a sentence or two, about these differences and why they were explainable and didn't undermine the match might have saved him some time on the stand.

A note or report by the verifier about what he saw would have been useful. Ideally, I'd like to know what he knew about the case and match when he made the ID.

I don't have a good solution yet, but I am uneasy about the documentation I currently see.

Lisa,

I’ve been involved in cases myself that have been dismissed due to inappropriate documentation of when and where a latent was lifted (by someone other than myself). I completely agree that this is essential and the dismissal was well warranted. During the process of preserving evidence, this kind of documentation can’t be reproduced later. My comments were strictly referring to the comparison process. In most cases, the comparison process can easily be reconstructed again by any practitioner at a later date. In the other cases that involve a more complex analysis, I agree that documentation is not only a tool to save someone time in reproducing the conclusion later but it’s also important to justify or validate how the conclusion was arrived at. I do believe that documentation is important I just believe it should be done when it’s needed instead of making a random policy that shows an office uses it but they may not use it at the appropriate times.

I just wanted to clarify that.

Ms. Steele. I am not afraid of defense fodder. Like someone on an earlier post the court challenges will just make us better.

I agree with Dogma and Dave. The "Devils in the Content". I am more afraid of my Mangement and people in the "Fingerprint Discipline" than I am of the Courts.

If I was to sit here and describe in writing a painting that you have never seen, and then give you what I have written, you probably would like to see the painting. I think very few would try to work with a written description of a fingerprint. I would want to see the prints in question. I understand that it is to describe the mental process, but those descriptions I have seen have not allowed me to do that. I need to work thorugh my own processes.

I appreciate your description of your case. I would like to respond to some of that later.

I wanted to touch once more on the word ‘Bias’. The following are some thoughts given to me by several other people and I have tried to include them here and they are not just all mine.

I agree that there may be some truth in ‘Confirmation Bias’. I do not think it is as common as some may believe. But I could be wrong. I wonder how many erroneous identifications are related to ‘confirmation bias’ and how many are related to “poor work done badly”? How many were done due to poor training, poor work habits, and just not really understanding the methodology and the mental process behind it?

I see a new phrase in the lexicon of the day and that is ‘Examiner Bias’ that means the person doing the verification will quickly sign off on individualization because of the examiner presenting it. When I have seen or suspected that is occurring it is generally not related to a specific examiner but the individual is doing it almost on all verifications. Is that ‘examiner bias’ or poor work habit and being lazy. It is going to be real hard to separate the two.

But what sounds better in court. The defense to ask you questions about other examiners poor work habits or to ask you while looking at the jury if you have ever heard of ‘examiner bias’. Bias is a strong little three letter word that has that tendency to grab someone’s attention. It certainly has more ring to it than ‘bad work habits’. You see when they change it from ‘poor work habits’ to ‘bias’ it has been moved from the physical to the mental. The bottom line is that ‘bias’ is harder to rebut than ‘poor work habits’.

Now before I am called a stick in the mud, an old fuddy-duddy, my head buried in the sand, and the old age ability to ignore the problem, I want to say that I agree somewhat with Pat, Scrutiny, and the others. The word ‘Bias’ is here and it is here to stay so you better gear up for it, because it is not going to go away. You better be prepared to handle it, and handle it effectively.

One of the best things I learned on this site over 18 months ago is the following statement about ‘bias’. Knowing about something ahead of time is not ‘bias’ in itself, but using that information to form your analysis and justify your conclusion is ‘bias’. I have used that twice now in court and it has effectively limited the questions on that subject. But I know that will not last much longer, so I will have to get innovative on how I tackle the ‘bias’ question.

‘Bias’ is just a three letter word that means poor work done badly. I would not be surprised that pretty soon we start hearing the words “Work Bias”. I know several that would fit in that category.

This whole thread probably should be discussed in two separate threads. One for ACE-V documentation and another for blind verification. With regards to ACE-V documentation, I can't say I could write anything better that what Mr. Grieve wrote. Let's face it, visual information speaks. How we interpret that is just as important, but the visual information comes first--documentation of our decision making process comes in second. I think written documentation is not necessary except for impressions of poor quality.

On blind verification... what I am seeing over and over is what I interpret as denial and resistance. I am not saying that bias is a wide spread problem. But the nature of latent print work should compel every examiner to be concerned. I think the reasoning that some types of comparisons are more susceptible to confirmation bias than others is very valid and practical. I think confirmation bias should be absolutely guarded against in cases of poor image quality. Like I said before I would like to see a sophisticated computer algorithm make that call. Not a subjective person. The argument that "I'm a good person and I always do it right" is not good enough in science.

I also dislike comparing forensic science to fixing things. I don’t think you can compare latent print examination to fixing toasters, cars, paper jams, hemorrhoids, or anything else. Here is why that analogy does not work: Let's say we have a toaster that does not work. We could form a committee and study the toaster. We could burn 100 pieces of toast and write reports on what we think ought to be done to fix the toaster. The difference is when we actually find the cause for the burnt toast and fix it, there will be no more burnt toast. In some cases there is no resolution to a bum ID if the image is so poor or distorted that a match cannot (should not) be made. In those lower threshold cases bias should be removed at every contact point, as a matter of principle.

Now I just said I hate workman type scenarios, but here is one. Let's say I need to make a measurement for a piece of wood that I am cutting. Let's say that it is very expensive and if I screw up I will be beheaded. I make my measurement, and I make it again. Now I know that it is unlikely but possible I have done it wrong. Because I like my head attached to my neck I ask for a second opinion. I call my partner who is unloading the truck. I tell her the scenario. Prior to taking the measurement she says, What measurement did you get? Should I tell her or let her make her measurement blindly and then compare notes later? But alas even if we both screw up the mistake can be caught because the measurement is objective. Not so with deciding on poor quality images.

One of the best things I learned on this site over 18 months ago is the following statement about ‘bias’. Knowing about something ahead of time is not ‘bias’ in itself, but using that information to form your analysis and justify your conclusion is ‘bias’. I have used that twice now in court and it has effectively limited the questions on that subject. But I know that will not last much longer, so I will have to get innovative on how I tackle the ‘bias’ question.

If you get a defense attorney who understands the cognitive psych, this answer may not help you.

I get the nagging sense we are talking past each other. Let me go back to first principles. Drs. Dror & Busey explain this better, by all means go back to their articles for details & the underlying studies.

1. The eye is not a mere camera. What we see is an image the brain has processed and interpreted.

2. Memory is not a videotape. What seems to us a replay of the original event is a compliation of the event and post-event information, logical inferences, and guesswork.

These two hypothesis are probably as fundamental to the cognitive psych folks as uniqueness and premanence are to your field.

Thus, your eyes and memory can, in effect, lie to you. They can fail to present you with objective reality. It isn't a matter of consciously deciding not to use biasing information. I'm talking about the subconscious, which may use that information whether you want it to or not. Because it is your subconscious, you won't be aware of it.

The phenomena is common, but Dr. Dror's studies suggest it only makes a difference in limited situations - in this context "difficult" prints where the examiner needs to interpret a lot of ambiguous information and has been given information leading him/her to expect a certain result.

Once you've been given information, you can't go back go back to the original untainted state. Once you see the exampar, you'll likely see the latent differently. Simple photos of the images, as David G. and Strict S. suggest, don't entirely suffice as subsequent examiners won't see the image in a naive state. If I hire an expert he/she can logically assume that someone has matched this latent to my client, and that information can affect what they see. What I am hoping for is some ideas about what you saw in the latent in that naive state. If you aren't in a fully naive state -- you've been given information about the suspect, FREX, then I want to know that as it may affect what you saw and may raise a red flag telling me I do need as blind a review as I can manage of the evidence.

Michele Triplett wrote:Hiedi,
I think the confusion is in the wording. I do make notes like that but I’ve never considered them contemporaneous documentation. I just considered it a quick reference sheet.

When I think of contemporaneous documentation, I think of something like this:

It’s a whorl slanted to the left,
my target group is blah, blah, blah, the bifurcation on the left may not really exist, it could be the result of smearing,
didn’t find it,
chose another target group of blah, blah, blah, with an incipient short ridge
didn’t find these characteristics with or without the incipient,
realized I had the latent upside down,
searched again and found both of these target groups in the #7 finger of Jones,
after further examination an individualization was effected, incipient ridge was visible in the known. Etc.

The articles that I’ve read about contemporaneous documentation have stated that the value in writing what you’re seeing as you go, or prior to doing the comparison, is that it stops you from only using information that fits the subject (diminishing the potential for bias). If you labeled something at the beginning then if it doesn’t exist in the exemplar you have to explain it, not simply ignore it.

The reference sheets I use to quickly familiarize myself with the comparison prior to court is made up after I’ve made my conclusion and bias could have been an issue.

Ah, yes I see what you mean about the wording. What you are describing are two separate sheets for me as well. The first you've described would be what I call a "comparison sheet" where I describe in detail what I'm seeing that matches (or doesn't). The second you've described is my "analysis sheet" where I describe what I'm seeing in the latent before looking at the standard at all. In both cases, I only do these on "difficult" latents where I want to make certain I'm not storytelling to myself that a particular feature is there because I saw it in the standard (in the case of the analysis sheet) and when I want to be able to go back over my logic and how I "got onto" the ID later if I have to look at the print again (in the case of the comparison sheet). But both of these sheets, when used, I would do at the time that I am working with the print, not months or years later when I knew I was going to court. Ideally, the only thing I'd have to do prior to going to court would be to review my notes and possibly make a court chart to show the jury.

the scientific method doesn’t call for blind verification, only that a person’s conclusions be available and reproducible. Peer review does not equal blind verification. As we know, qualified scientific research is reviewed at some level but not blindly. The conclusions are made available to those who wish to view, interpret, retest the data and its conclusions (like the defense for that matter!).

As a profession, we produce good science and our conclusions are always available for scrutiny and further testing by others if they choose. But those that have differing opinions or their conclusions reveal an alternate finding are held to the same scientific standard and they will typically publish the data and conclusions that refute the original conclusions. So, my question is, does the defense ever bear the burden of realiable proving why the testimony shouldn't be allowed? Was there a defense expert in this case that concluded that it was not an identification?

Ms. Steele

You are absolutely right, if I do get a defense attorney who understands Cognitive Psychology, my little line will not help. That is why I am pulling and reading as much material on the subject as I can. I know the concept of Cognitive Bias is going through the Forensic Discipline and I need to prepare as it does not matter a pot of beans what I believe but how I can answer those questions in a court of law.

I have read Dror and Busey and several months ago I made both articles AOI (Articles of Interest) and they ave been required reading in this latent section (as well as yours--a good piece of work).

I agree that the eye is not a mere camera. That concept has been around longer than Cognitive Psychology.

I agree that memory is not a video-tape but is a very complex systems of cognition, recognition, experiences, motives, training, etc. . The brain is a complex organ that human beings are just starting to unravel.

You say “…your eyes and memory can, in effect, lie to you. They can fail to present you with objective reality.” The word “can” imparts to me the meaning that yes it might, but then again it might not. What I want to know is how often it can fail and under what situations can it fail. Surely it cannot fail all the time or we would not be able to function. Again I state that I believe that Cognitive (Confirmation) Bias is possible. There is some good reasonable arguments for it in some situations. I would like to know more about when and how, before I jump. There was a study done in Boston and I believe the results will be presented in San Diego. I will be there hook or crook and even if I have to thumb a ride. This topic interests me but I am not sure as to what extent that it covers.

I agree that if the problem exists then it would be with problem prints. Surely we could find a different solution to problem prints other than ‘Blind Verification’ as the only means to overcome it.

I wish I could present a valid argument but my training, knowledge, and experience in the Cognitive Sciences is limited to about the size of a pin head.

But something I have found that I thought was interesting comes from ‘Cognitive Bias’ on Wikipedia “Recently, some scientist (David Funder and Joachim Krueger) have raised doubt as to whether all of the “biases” are in fact errors. Their theories hold that some so called ‘biases’ may in fact be ‘approximation shortcuts’, that aid humans in making predictions when information is in short supply.”

This may not help the erroneous identification situation, but I think it might fit in better with LPE who are faced with marginal or problem prints. I am going to be reading more on Funder and Krueger. It seems that maybe Cognitive Psychology may have their own Empirical and Holistic situation going on.

To close I would like to make another quote from Wikipedia under Situated Cognition. It states “Recently, situated cognition theorists have been pushing for more authentic research. They argue that situating their students and research participants in authentic situations will help them achieve better research results and ultimately enhance their understanding of educational theories.” I also am reading more on Situated Cognition.

I have been called denying the effect of Cognitive Bias, and I would like to say there is a difference in denying and belief. I do not deny it exists. I have a belief fault in how much, and exactly when and is Blind Verification the best solution.

But for what it is worth the discipline of Cognitive Psychology even have a name for me. It is called “BIAS BLIND SPOT—The tendency not to compensate for one’s own cognitive biases”.