The potential (negative) influence of observational biases at the analysis stage of fingermark individualisation

Forensic Science International

Volumn 167, Issue 2-3, 2007, Pages 116-120

  Schiffer, Beatrice ^a   Champod, Christophe ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LAUSANNE   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Errors; Experimental study; Fingermarks; Misidentification; Observational biases

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; FINGER DERMATOGLYPHICS; FORENSIC IDENTIFICATION; HUMAN; LEGAL ASPECT; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RELIABILITY; SWITZERLAND; TRAINING; UNIVERSITY; VOCATIONAL EDUCATION;

EID: 33947393916     PISSN: 03790738     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2006.06.036     Document Type: Article

References (11)

1. O.o.t.I.G. U.S. Department of Justice (Ed.), A Review of the FBI's Handling of the Brandon Mayfield Case, 2006, pp. 1-330.
2. Giannelli P.C. Scientific Evidence and Miscarriages of Justice. Proceedings of the 16th International Conference of the International Society for the Reform of Criminal Law. Charleston, SC, USA (2002) 1-14
3. Risinger M.D., Saks M.J., Thompson W.C., and Rosenthal R. The Daubert/Kumho implications of observer effects in forensic science: hidden problems of expectation and suggestion. California Law Rev 90 (2002) 1-56
4. Dror I.E., Péron A., Hind S.-L., and Charlton D. When emotions get the better of us: the effect of contextual top-down processing on matching fingerprints. Appl. Cognit. Psychol. 19 6 (2005) 799-809
5. Ashbaugh D.R. Quantitative-Qualitative Friction Ridge Analysis: An Introduction to Basic and Advanced Ridgeology (1999), CRC Press LLC, Boca Raton, NY
6. Langenburg G.M. Pilot study: a statistical analysis of the ACE-V methodology-analysis Stage. J. Forensic Identif. 54 (2004) 64-79
7. Dror I.E., Charlton D., and Péron A. Contextual information renders experts vulnerable to making erroneous identifications. Forensic Sci. Int. 156 (2006) 74-78
8. Kerstholt J.H., Paashuis R., and Sjerps M. Shoe print examinations: effects of expectation, complexity and experience. Forensic Sci. Int. (2006)
9. Tversky A., and Kahneman D. Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185 (1974) 1124-1131
10. Cole S.A. Is fingerprint identification valid? Rhetorics of reliability in fingerprint proponents' discourse. Law Policy 28 (2006) 109-135
11. Evett I.W., and Williams R.L. A review of the sixteen point fingerprint standard in England and Wales. Fingerprint World 21 (1995)