DNA-based identification and molecular systematics of forensically important Sarcophagidae (Diptera)

Sarcophagid flies have many characteristics that make them ideal forensic indicators. However, their utility is severely limited because it is difficult or impossible to determine the species of a sarcophagid larva, and in many instances an adult specimen, based on anatomy. We developed a database of mitochondrial DNA sequence data that makes it possible to identify all sarcophagid species likely to be found feeding on a human corpse at an urban location in Canada or the USA. Analyses were based on a 783 base pair region of the gene for cytochrome oxidase subunit one (COI). The species analyzed, including some of no forensic importance that were included for purposes of phylogenetic comparisons, were members of the genera Sarcophaga, Peckia, Blaesoxipha, Rovinia, Wohlfahrtia, Brachicoma (all Sarcophagidae), and Musca (Muscidae).     

The Effects of Pre-admonition Suggestions on Eyewitnesses’ Choosing Rates and Retrospective Identification Judgments

Pre-admonition suggestion is an identification-relevant comment made to an eyewitness by a lineup administrator before the lineup admonition. Quinlivan et al. (2012) found that their suggestion inflated mistaken identification rates and retrospective identification. However, the suggestion used was a compound statement, making it unclear which component influenced choosing rates. The current experiment was conducted to parse out the effects. Participants (N = 211) viewed a crime video and received either one component of the compound suggestion (a suggestion to pick or that the witness had paid substantial attention), both components, or no suggestion. All participants received an admonition, made an identification choice, and answered questions about their witnessing experience. The results demonstrated that the pick suggestion increased mistaken identifications from a perpetrator-absent lineup whereas the effects of the attention suggestion were restricted to the retrospective judgments. These results show support for the role of secondary (non-memorial) processes in eyewitness identification.     

The validity of criminal justice contacts reported by inmates: A comparison of self-reported data with official prison records

Purpose

Existing research on criminal justice contact data has not adequately examined the quality of self-reported timing data, has produced discrepant findings on validity as it relates to demographics, and is limited in its assessment of data quality using a life event calendar method. The study described in this article assessed the validity of self-reported contacts with the criminal justice system gathered using a life event calendar with a sample of incarcerated men.

Methods

Self-reports of criminal justice contacts (i.e., arrests, jail terms, prison terms) were obtained from over 700 incarcerated men using a structured life-event calendar method. Similarly, data were collected from the inmate's official records for the same events. These reports served as an external criterion for the self-reports.

Results

Results indicated a significant degree of reporting errors for arrests using the life event calendar approach with better reporting for jail and prison terms. Additionally, individuals with the highest number of previous arrests had the greatest recall difficulties.

Conclusions

Recall of arrest presents a difficult recall task. The life event calendar method should either be modified to improve recall of specific events for criminological samples or used instead to capture information on more general and extended events.     

On the Diagnosticity of Multiple-Witness Identifications

It is not uncommon for there to be multiple eyewitnesses to a crime, each of whom is later shown a lineup. How is the probative value, or diagnosticity, of such multiple-witness identifications to be evaluated? Previous treatments have focused on the diagnosticity of a single eyewitness’s response to a lineup (Wells and Lindsay, Psychol. Bull. 3 (1980) 776); however, the results of eyewitness identification experiments indicate that the responses of multiple independent witnesses may often be inconsistent. The present paper calculates response diagnosticity for multiple witnesses and shows how diagnostic probabilities change across various combinations of consistent and inconsistent witness responses. Multiple-witness diagnosticity is examined across variation in the conditions of observation, lineup composition, and lineup presentation. In general, the diagnostic probabilities of guilt were shown to increase with the addition of suspect identifications and decrease with the addition of nonidentifications. Foil identification results were more complicated-diagnostic of innocence in many cases, but nondiagnostic or diagnostic of innocence in biased lineups. These analyses illustrate the importance of securing clear records of all witness responses, rather than myopically focusing on the witness who identified the suspect while ignoring those witnesses who did not.