Metric forensic anthropology decisions: Reliability and biasability of sectioning-point-based sex estimates

Subjective decisions make human cognitive processes more susceptible to bias and error. Specifically, research indicates that additional context biases forensic anthropologists’ morphological analyses. To address whether metric analyses are also subject to bias, we conducted a pilot study in which 52 experienced osteologists measured a difficult-to-classify human femur, with or without additional contextual information. Using a metric sectioning-point sex-estimation method, participants provided a sex estimate for individual skeletal element(s) and, when given multiple elements, the combined skeletal assemblage. Control group participants (n = 24) measured only the femur. In addition to the femur, bias group participants (n = 28) either measured a female humerus and viewed a female-biasing photograph (n = 14) or measured a male humerus and viewed a male-biasing photograph (n = 14). We explored whether the experts in the different groups would differ in: (1) femoral measurements; (2) femoral sex-estimation conclusions; and (3) final sex-estimation conclusions for the skeletal assemblage. Although the femoral measurements and femoral sex estimates were comparable across groups, the overall sex estimates in the female-biased group were impacted by contextual information—differing from both the control and male-biased groups (p < 0.001). Our results demonstrate that cognitive bias can occur even in metric sex-estimation conclusions. Specifically, this occurred when the metric data and single-element sex estimates were synthesized into an overall estimate. Thus, our results suggest that metric methods are most vulnerable to bias when data are synthesized into an overall conclusion, highlighting the need for bias countermeasures and comprehensive statistical frameworks for synthesizing metric data to mitigate the effects of cognitive bias.     

What do forensic analysts consider relevant to their decision making?

In response to research demonstrating that irrelevant contextual information can bias forensic science analyses, authorities have increasingly urged laboratories to limit analysts' access to irrelevant and potentially biasing information (Dror and Cole (2010) [3]; National Academy of Sciences (2009) [18]; President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (2016) [22]; UK Forensic Science Regulator (2015) [26]). However, a great challenge in implementing this reform is determining which information is task-relevant and which is task-irrelevant. In the current study, we surveyed 183 forensic analysts to examine what they consider relevant versus irrelevant in their forensic analyses. Results revealed that analysts generally do not regard information regarding the suspect or victim as essential to their analytic tasks. However, there was significant variability among analysts within and between disciplines. Findings suggest that forensic science disciplines need to agree on what they regard as task-relevant before context management procedures can be properly implemented. The lack of consensus about what is relevant information not only leaves room for biasing information, but also reveals foundational gaps in what analysts consider crucial in forensic decision making.     

Cumulative career traumatic stress (CCTS): A pilot study of traumatic stress in law enforcement

The present study measured the existence of traumatic stress symptomatology as reported by certified law enforcement officers within the State of Delaware. A questionnaire was devised which documented age, sex, race, education, years of service, marital status, children, rank, position, and shift work. The questionnaire was divided into parts which assessed the exposure and the frequency of specific traumatic incidents experienced in the line of duty, and the frequency of experienced traumatic symptomatology criteria: re-experiencing, numbing, and arousal.     

The recovery of finger marks from soot-covered glass fire debris.

This study aimed to expand the scope of previous research by assessing the effectiveness of soot-removal techniques on glass from petrol-bomb debris using methods of 1% and 2% sodium hydroxide (NaOH) solutions, ultrasonic bath and vacuum suction. Of particular interest were the 1% and 2% NaOH solutions applied to the soot-covered surfaces. Petrol bombs containing petrol or a 50:50 mix of petrol and motor oil were exploded and the debris was collected for analysis. Favourable results were found to varying degrees using each of the soot-removal methods with the 1% and 2% NaOH wash solutions, being the most useful. The 2% NaOH solution also proved successful as a soak to loosen and remove heavy contamination of soot and accelerants without damaging the finger mark beneath. This study also found that recovery of finger marks in blood from beneath soot using the 2% NaOH solution was possible. Finger marks were also applied to glass bottles with plastic adhesive labels, and providing the fire damage is not too great marks were also retrievable. Results from this study lead to the conclusion that the NaOH wash solution is ideally suited for soot removal to reveal latent and blood-contaminated marks both within the laboratory and at crime scenes.     

The Report of the International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur & Genocidal Intent — A Critical Analysis

Netherlands International Law Review -