Authors' response

Journal of Forensic Sciences

Volumn 54, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 501-

  Krane, Dan E ^a   Ford, Simon ^b   Gilder, Jason R ^c   Inman, Keith ^d   Jamieson, Allan ^e   Koppl, Roger ^f   Kornfield, Irving L ^g   Michael Risinger, D ^h   Rudin, Norah ⁱ   Taylor, Marc Scott ^j   Thompson, William C ^a  

^a WRIGHT STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Lexigen Science and Law Consultants Inc   (United States)

^c Forensic Bioinformatics Inc   (United States)

^d Forensic Analytical Sciences Inc   (United States)

^e Forensic Institute   (United Kingdom)

^f FAIRLEIGH DICKINSON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^g UNIVERSITY OF MAINE   (United States)

^h SETON HALL UNIVERSITY   (United States)

ⁱ Technical Associates Inc ^*

^j UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

more..

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DNA DETERMINATION; EPISTEMOLOGY; FORENSIC MEDICINE; LETTER; OBSERVER BIAS; OBSERVER VARIATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

EID: 60849123912     PISSN: 00221198     EISSN: 15564029     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2009.00990.x     Document Type: Letter

References (21)

1. Risinger DM, Saks MJ, Thompson WC, Rosenthal R. The Daubert/Kumho implications of observer effects in forensic science: hidden problems of expectation and suggestion. Calif Law Rev 2002 90 (1 1 56.
2. Saks MJ, Risinger DM, Rosenthal R, Thompson WC. Context effects in forensic science. Sci Justice 2003 43 (2 77 90.
3. Nisbett R, Ross L. Human inference. Englewood Cliffs, NJ : Prentice Hall, Inc., 1980.
4. Dror IE, Peron A, Hind SL, Charlton D. When emotions get the better of us: the effect of contextual top-down processing on matching fingerprints. Appl Cogn Psychol 2005 19 (6 799 809.
5. Dror IE, Charlton D, Peron A. Contextual information renders experts vulnerable to making erroneous identifications. Forensic Sci Int 2006 156 : 74 8.
6. Dror IE, Charlton D. Why experts make errors. J Forensic Identif 2006 56 (4 600 16.
7. Dror IE, Rosenthal R. Meta-analytically quantifying the reliability and biasability of forensic experts. J Forensic Sci 2008 53 (4 900 3.
8. Schiffer B, Champod C. The potential (negative) influence of observational biases at the analysis stage of fingermark individualization. Forensic Sci Int 2007 167 : 116 20.
9. Miller LS. Bias among forensic document examiners: a need for procedural change. J Police Sci and Admin 1984 12 : 407.
10. Miller LS. Procedural bias in forensic examination of hair. Law Hum Behav 1987 11 (2 157 63.
11. Beckham JC, Annis LV, Gustafson DJ. Decision making and examiner bias in forensic expert recommendations for not guilty by reason of insanity. Law Hum Behav 1989 13 (1 79 87.
12. Plous S. The psychology of judgment and decision making. New York, NY : McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1993.
13. Schneider DJ, Hastorf AH, Ellsworth PC. Person perception. 2nd ed., Reading, MA : Addison-Wesley Publishing, 1979.
14. Gilovich T. How we know what isn't so: the fallibility of human reason in everyday life. New York, NY : The Free Press, 1991.
15. Thompson WC. Subjective interpretation, laboratory error and the value of forensic DNA evidence: three case studies. Genetica 1995 96 : 153 68.
16. Thompson WC. A sociological perspective on the science of forensic DNA testing. UC Davis Law Rev 1997 30 (4 1113 36.
17. Thompson WC. Accepting lower standards: the National Research Council's second report on forensic DNA evidence. Jurimetrics J 1997 37 (4 405 24.
18. Thompson WC, Ford S, Doom T, Raymer M, Krane D. Evaluating forensic DNA evidence: essential elements of a competent defense review: Part 1. The Champion 2003 27 (3 16 25.
19. Thompson WC, Cole SA. Psychological aspects of forensic identification evidence. In : Costanzo M, Krauss D, Pezdek K, editors. Expert psychological testimony for the courts. New York : Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates, 2007 31 68.
20. Butler JM, Kline MC. NIST mixture interpretation interlaboratory study 2005 (MIX05). Presented as poster at the 16th International Symposium on Human Identification, Grapevine, Texas, September 26-28, 2005. Available at http://www.cstl.nist.gov/div831/strbase/interlab/MIX05/MIX05poster.pdf.
21. Krane DE, Ford S, Gilder JR, Inman K, Jamieson A, Koppl R, et al. Sequential unmasking: A means of minimizing observer effects in forensic DNA interpretation (letter). J Forensic Sci 2008 53 (4 1006 7.