What role should investigative facts play in the evaluation of scientific evidence?

Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences

Volumn 43, Issue 2-3, 2011, Pages 123-134

  Thompson, William C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

bias; blind procedures; case manager; context; domain relevant; observer effect

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DNA DETERMINATION; EPISTEMOLOGY; EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE; FORENSIC SCIENCE; HUMAN; HYBRIDIZATION; ILLUSION; INTROSPECTION; METHODOLOGY; OBSERVER BIAS;

EID: 79957507152     PISSN: 00450618     EISSN: 1834562X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00450618.2010.541499     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Hagan WE. A treatise on disputed handwriting and the determination of genuine from forged signatures. New York: Banks & Brothers; 1894 (available online at http://books.google.com).
2. Risinger DM, Saks MJ, Thompson WC, Rosenthal R. The Daubert/Kumho implications of observer effects in forensic science: Hidden problems of expectation and suggestion. Cal L Rev. 2002;90:1-56.
3. Saks MJ, Risinger DM, Rosenthal R, Thompson WC. Context effects in forensic science. Sci & Just. 2003;43(2): 77-90.
4. Inman K, Rudin N. Q&A: how much should the analyst know. CAC News. 1997;Fall:18-19. (available online at (http://www.cacnews.org/news/fall97.pdf).
5. Krane DE, Ford S, Gilder J, Inman K, Jamieson A, Koppl R, Kornfield I, Risinger DM, Rudin N, Taylor MS, Thompson WC. Sequential unmasking: a means of minimizing observer effects in forensic DNA interpretation. J Forens Sci. 2008;53(4): 1006-1007. (Pubitemid 352000145)
6. Krane DE, Ford S, Gilder J, Inman K, Jamieson A, Koppl R, Kornfield I, Risinger DM, Rudin N, Taylor MS, Thompson WC. Commentary on Budowle, et al. A perspective on errors, bias and interpretation in the forensic sciences and directions for continuing advancement. J Forens Sci. 2010;55(1): 273-274.
7. Dror IE, Charlton D, Peron A. Contextual information renders experts vulnerable to making erroneous identifications. Forens Sci Intl. 2006;156:74-78. (Pubitemid 43061287)
8. Dror IE, Charlton D. Why experts make errors. J Forens Ident 2006;56(4): 600-616. (Pubitemid 43955743)
9. Dror IE, Rosenthal R. Meta-analytically quantifying the reliability and biasability of forensic experts. J Forens Sci 2008;53(4): 900-903. (Pubitemid 352000129)
10. Thompson WC. Painting the target around the matching profile: the Texas sharpshooter fallacy in forensic DNA interpretation. Law, Prob & Risk. 2009;8:257-276.
11. Stacey RB. Report on the erroneous fingerprint individualization in the Madrid train bombing case. J Forens Ident. 2004;54(6): 706-718. (Pubitemid 39463531)
12. Office of the Inspector General. A review of the FBI's handling of the Brandon Mayfield case. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice; 2006.
13. Thompson WC, Cole SA. Lessons from the Brandon Mayfield case. The Champion. 2005;March:32-34.
14. Committee on Identifying the Needs of the Forensic Sciences Community. National Research Council, Strengthening forensic science in the United States: A path forward. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2009.
15. Cognitive Bias and Forensic Science Workshop [Internet]. Illinois. Northwestern University School of Law [cited 2010 Oct 10]. Available from http://www.law.northwes-tern.edu/faculty/conferences/workshops/cognitivebias/
16. Nisbett R, Ross L. Human inference. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, Inc, 1980. p. 67.
17. Thompson WC. Interpretation: observer effects. In: Wiley encyclopedia of forensic science. Chichester, UK: Wiley, 2009.1575-1579.
18. The need for blind procedures in forensic science [Internet]. Scientific Testimony: An Online Journal [cited 2010 Oct 10]. Available from http://scientific.org/open-forum/articles/blind.html
19. Nisbett RE, Wilson TD. Telling more than we can know: verbal reports on mental processes. Psych Rev. 1977;84:231-259.
20. Dawson E, Gilovich T, Regan DT. Motivated reasoning and the Wason selection task. Pers Soc Psych Bull. 2002;28:1379-1387. (Pubitemid 41301404)
21. Ditto P, Lopez DF. Motivated skepticism: use of differential decision criteria for preferred and nonpreferred conclusions. J Pers Soc Psych. 1992;63:568-584.
22. Dunning D, Meyerowitz JA, Holzberg AD. Ambiguity and self-evaluation: The role of idiosyncratic trait definitions in self-serving appraisal of ability. J Pers Soc Psych. 1989;57:1082-1090.
23. Kunda Z. Motivated inference: self-serving generation and evaluation of causal theories. J Pers Soc Psych. 1987;53:636-647.
24. Wilson TD, Brekke N. Mental contamination and mental correction: unwanted influences on judgments and evaluations. Psych Bull. 1994;116:117-142. (Pubitemid 24976765)
25. Pronin E, Gilovich T, Ross L. Objectivity in the eye of the beholder: divergent perceptions of bias in self versus others. Psych Rev. 2004;111:781-799. (Pubitemid 38883581)
26. Pronin E. Perception and misperception of bias in human judgment. Trends in Cog Sci. 2006;11:37-43.
27. Cook R, Evett IW, Jackson G, Jones PJ, Lambert JA. A hierarchy of propositions: deciding which level to address in casework. Sci & Justice. 1998;38:231-239. (Pubitemid 28499800)
28. Evett IW, Jackson G, Lambert JA. More on the hierarchy of propositions: exploring the distinction between explanations and propositions. Sci & Justice. 2000;40:3-10. (Pubitemid 30195411)
29. Tape TG, Panzer RJ. Echocardiography, endocarditis, and clinical information bias. J Gen Int Med. 1986;1:300-304. (Pubitemid 17130136)
30. Schreiber MH. The clinical history as a factor in roentgenogram interpretation. J Amer Med Assn. 1963;185:137-139.
31. Doubilet P, Herman PG. Interpretation of radiographs: effect of clinical history. Am J. Radiol. 1981;137:1055-1058. (Pubitemid 12233515)
32. Potchen EJ, Gard JW, Lazar P, Lahaie P, Andary M. The effect of clinical history data on chest film interpretation: direction or distraction? Invest Radiol. 1979;14:404.
33. Swensson RG, Hessel SJ, Herman PG. Omissions in radiology: faulty search or stringent reporting criteria? Radiology. 1977;123:563-567. (Pubitemid 8097523)
34. Elstein AS, Shulman LS, Sprafka SA. Medical problem solving: an analysis of clinical reasoning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1978.
35. Aitken CGG. Statistics and the evaluation of evidence for forensic scientists. Chichester, UK: Wiley; 1995.
36. Thompson WC, Taroni F, Aitken CGG. How the probability of a false positive affects the value of DNA evidence. J Forens Sci. 2003;48(1): 47-54. (Pubitemid 36084080)
37. Schum DA. Evidential foundations of probabilistic reasoning. New York: Wiley, 1994.
38. Risinger DM. The NAS/NRC report on forensic science: a glass nine-tenths full (this is about the other tenth). Jurimetrics. 2009;50:21-34.
39. Drizen S, Leo R. The problem of false confessions in the post-DNA world. No Carolina L Rev. 2004;82:891-1007.
40. Thompson WC. Beyond bad apples: analyzing the role of forensic science in wrongful convictions. Southwestern L Rev. 2008;37(4): 1027-1050.