The Most Common Types of Bias in a Human Bitemark Analysis
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
3. Results
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Senn, D.R.; Stimson, P.G. Forensic Dentistry, 2nd ed.; CRC: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Adams, C.; Carabott, R.; Evans, S. Forensic Odontology: An Essential Guide; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Rai, B.; Kaur, J. Evidence-Based Forensic Dentistry, 1st ed.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- ABFO-Standards-Guidelines-for-Evaluating-Bitemarks-Feb-2018.pdf. 2018. Available online: https://abfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/ABFO-Standards-Guidelines-for-Evaluating-Bitemarks-Feb-2018.pdf (accessed on 4 February 2024).
- Bowers, C.M.; Bowers, C.M.C. Forensic Dental Evidence: An Investigator’s Handbook; Elsevier Science: San Diego, CA, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Bowers, C.M. Forensic Dental Evidence: An Investigator’s Handbook, 2nd ed.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2010; pp. 1–327. [Google Scholar]
- Zajac, R.; Osborne, N.; Kieser, J. Contextual Bias in the Analysis of Bitemarks. In Wiley Encyclopedia of Forensic Science; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2015; pp. 1–9. [Google Scholar]
- Dror, I. The ambition to be scientific: Human expert performance and objectivity. Sci. Justice 2013, 53, 81–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Simoncelli, T. Report to the President Forensic Science in Criminal Courts: Ensuring Scientific Validity of Feature-Comparison Methods. 2016. Available online: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/PCAST/pcast_forensic_science_report_final.pdf (accessed on 4 February 2024).
- Mânica, G.M.S. Forensic Odontology: Psychological Aspects Reflected in the Dental Mirror. J. Forensic Psychol. 2020, 5, 157. [Google Scholar]
- Saks, M.J.; Albright, T.; Bohan, T.L.; Bierer, B.E.; Bowers, C.M.; Bush, M.A.; Bush, P.J.; Casadevall, A.; Cole, S.A.; Denton, M.B.; et al. Forensic bitemark identification: Weak foundations, exaggerated claims. J. Law Biosci. 2016, 3, 538–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bowers, C.M. Review of a forensic pseudoscience: Identification of criminals from bitemark patterns. J. Forensic Leg. Med. 2019, 61, 34–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dror, I.E. Cognitive neuroscience in forensic science: Understanding and utilizing the human element. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 2015, 370, 20140255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reesu, G.V.; Brown, N.L. Inconsistency in opinions of forensic odontologists when considering bite mark evidence. Forensic Sci. Int. 2016, 266, 263–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Available online: https://convictingtheinnocent.com/exoneree/roy-brown/ (accessed on 4 February 2024).
- Bush, M.A.; Miller, R.G.; Bush, P.J. C.E. Credit. Bitemark Analysis: The Legal vs Scientific Battle for Justice. J. Calif. Dent. Assoc. 2023, 51, 2191391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- National Research Council. NAS Report 2009.pdf. 2009. Available online: http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12589.html (accessed on 4 February 2024).
- Pretty, I.A.; Sweet, D. A look at forensic dentistry—Part 1: The role of teeth in the determination of human identity. Br. Dent. J. 2001, 190, 359–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Quigley-McBride, A.; Dror, I.E.; Roy, T.; Garrett, B.L.; Kukucka, J. A practical tool for information management in forensic decisions: Using Linear Sequential Unmasking-Expanded (LSU-E) in casework. Forensic Sci. Int. Synerg. 2022, 4, 100216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dror, I.E.; Kukucka, J. Linear Sequential Unmasking–Expanded (LSU-E): A general approach for improving decision making as well as minimizing noise and bias. Forensic Sci. Int. Synerg. 2021, 3, 100161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Page, M.; Taylor, J.; Blenkin, M. Context effects and observer bias—Implications for forensic odontology. J. Forensic Sci. 2012, 57, 108–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Holden, J.D. Hawthorne effects and research into professional practice. J. Eval. Clin. Pract. 2001, 7, 65–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wickström, G.; Bendix, T. The “Hawthorne effect”—What did the original Hawthorne studies actually show? Scand. J. Work Environ. Health 2000, 26, 363–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Saks, M.J.; Risinger, D.M.; Rosenthal, R.; Thompson, W.C. Context effects in forensic science: A review and application of the science of science to crime laboratory practice in the United States. Sci. Justice 2003, 43, 77–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dror, I.E. Cognitive and Human Factors in Expert Decision Making: Six Fallacies and the Eight Sources of Bias. Anal. Chem. 2020, 92, 7998–8004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Osborne, N.K.; Woods, S.; Kieser, J.; Zajac, R. Does contextual information bias bitemark comparisons? Sci. Justice 2014, 54, 267–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sweet, D.; Pretty, I.A. A look at forensic dentistry—Part 2: Teeth as weapons of violence-identification of bitemark perpetrators. Br. Dent. J. 2001, 190, 415–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Page, M.; Taylor, J.; Blenkin, M. Reality bites—A ten-year retrospective analysis of bitemark casework in Australia. Forensic Sci. Int. 2012, 216, 82–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Council, N.R. Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward; National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Sheasby, D.R.; MacDonald, D.G. A forensic classification of distortion in human bite marks. Forensic Sci. Int. 2001, 122, 75–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thompson, W.C.; Scurich, N. How Cross-Examination on Subjectivity and Bias Affects Jurors’ Evaluations of Forensic Science Evidence. J. Forensic Sci. 2019, 64, 1379–1388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thompson, W.C. What role should investigative facts play in the evaluation of scientific evidence? Aust. J. Forensic Sci. 2011, 43, 123–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Found, B.; Ganas, J. The management of domain irrelevant context information in forensic handwriting examination casework. Sci. Justice 2013, 53, 154–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Osborne, N.K.P.; Taylor, M.C. Contextual information management: An example of independent-checking in the review of laboratory-based bloodstain pattern analysis. Sci. Justice 2018, 58, 226–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cunliffe, E.; Edmond, G. Gaitkeeping in Canada: Mis-Steps in assessing the reliability of expert testimony. Can. B Rev. 2013, 92, 327. [Google Scholar]
- Klein, G. Naturalistic decision making. Hum. Factors 2008, 50, 456–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Petty, R.E.; Cacioppo, J.T.; Petty, R.E.; Cacioppo, J.T. The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1986. [Google Scholar]
- Nickerson, R.S. Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 1998, 2, 175–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Edmond, G.; Towler, A.; Growns, B.; Ribeiro, G.; Found, B.; White, D.; Ballantyne, K.; Searston, R.A.; Thompson, M.B.; Tangen, J.M.; et al. Thinking forensics: Cognitive science for forensic practitioners. Sci. Justice 2017, 57, 144–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dror, I.E.; Wertheim, K.; Fraser-Mackenzie, P.; Walajtys, J. The impact of human-technology cooperation and distributed cognition in forensic science: Biasing effects of AFIS contextual information on human experts. J. Forensic Sci. 2012, 57, 343–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Herzog, M.H.; Fahle, M. The role of feedback in learning a vernier discrimination task. Vis. Res. 1997, 37, 2133–2141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Database | Search Strategy |
---|---|
PubMed https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ (accessed on 28 May 2023) | (humans [MeSH] OR humans [Title/Abstract]) AND (Bites, Human [MeSH] OR bitemark OR “bitemark”) AND (Observer Variation [MeSH] OR bias OR accuracy OR accurate OR variation OR error* OR mistake*) |
Scopus https://www.scopus.com/ (accessed on 28 May 2023) | (TITLE-ABS-KEY (human*) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (bitemark* OR “bitemark*”) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (bias, variation, OR accuracy OR accurate OR variation OR error* OR mistake* OR analysis)) |
Google Scholar https://scholar.google.com/ (accessed on 28 May 2023) | (bitemark OR “human bitemark”) AND (cognitive bias OR contextual bias OR accuracy OR accurate OR mistake) |
Title | Authors | Source | Origin/Year | Study Type | Type of Bias | Suggestions to Remove Bias | Good Practice for Analysis |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Review of a forensic pseudoscience: Identification of criminals from bitemark patterns | C. Michael Bowers | Scopus | USA, 2019 | RA | CB | No information | No information |
Inconsistency in opinions of forensic odontologists when considering bitemark evidence | Reesu and Brown | Scopus | UK, 2016 | S | NO | No information | Introduction of recognized system for validation or revalidation of bitemarks |
Expert Disagreement in Bitemark Casework | Bowers and Pretty | Scopus | USA, 2009 | ES | NO | No information | Caution must be exercised while examining the bitemark |
Inquiry into the Scientific Basis for Bitemark Profiling and Arbitrary Distortion Compensation | Mary A. Bush et al. | Scopus | USA, 2010 | ES | PB | No information | DNA evidence, consideration of crime scene context and timing of injury, and perpetrator identification will make bitemark evidence important in court |
Context Effects and Observer Bias—Implications for Forensic Odontology | Mark Page et al. | Scopus | Australia, 2012 | RA | Conf.bias, CB, Cont. bias | The odontologist who was involved in collecting the evidence should not be involved in analysis. Limit the amount of extraneous information to forensic odontologist. | Measures should be taken to reduce potential biasing effects until there is a better understanding of the probable future path it will take |
The Barriers to Achieving an Evidence Base for Bitemark Analysis | Iain A. Pretty | PubMed | UK, 2006 | ES | NO | No information | Postgraduate programs in forensic training and research, replication of unique features on human skin and a better understanding of force used in bitemark are essential |
Does Contextual Information Bias Bitemark Comparisons? | Osborne et al. | PubMed | New Zealand, 2014 | ES | Cont. bias, EB | No information | Questions raised by this research should be addressed to gain further insight into the mechanisms that underlie the interpretation of bitemark evidence |
How Cross-Examination on Subjectivity and Bias Affects Jurors’ Evaluations of Forensic Science Evidence | Thompson et al. | PubMed | USA, 2019 | S | Cont. bias, CB | Forensic scientists can reduce contextual bias by adopting context management procedures that shield them from exposure to contextual information that is irrelevant in judgement, jurors also appreciate the blinding procedures | Further research should examine the jurors view regarding other forms of contextual bias, using procedures like LSU to reduce the level of contextual bias |
A Practical Tool for Information Management in Forensic Decisions: Using Linear Sequential Unmasking-Expanded (LSU-E) in Casework | Adele Quigley-McBride | Google Scholar | USA, 2022 | RA | CB, Cont. bias | Using (LSU-E) technique helps to reduce the cognitive bias while analyzing any evidence | This research helps in the practical implementation of the LSU-E technique. More research should be undertaken to turn research-based solutions into implementable tools for forensic analysis |
Cognitive Bias Research in Forensic Science | Glinda S. Cooper | Google Scholar | USA, 2019 | ES | CB | No information | Future research may provide additional data for understudied disciplines, may assess analytical subjectivity in relation to bias, and may assess sample complexity as an effective modifier. Attention to study design and reporting guidelines may result in strong and comprehensively described studies |
Thinking Forensics: Cognitive Science for Forensic Practitioners | Gary Edmond | Google Scholar | Australia, 2017 | SR | CB, Cont. bias | No information | To better understand their processes, capabilities, and limitations, forensic practitioners should read about cognitive science and experimental psychology. They might be able to improve output and arrive at new, more efficient ways of producing goods, presenting evidence in a way that accurately reflects and communicates what is understood. |
Legal Psychologists as Experts: Guidelines for Minimizing Bias | Vredeveldt et al. | Google Scholar | Netherlands, 2022 | RA | PB, CB | Reducing bias by raising awareness enables implementation of bias reducing measures, awareness on its own is not effective. People frequently suffer from the “illusion of control,” thinking that willpower alone can overcome their biases and mental patterns. However, to effectively reduce bias, practical measures must be put in place. | This seems especially important in situations where experts draw vastly diverse conclusions from the same data. An examination of these issues would be extremely valuable from both a legal and scientific standpoint |
Human Factors in Forensic Science: The Cognitive Mechanisms that Underlie Forensic Feature-Comparison Expertise | Growns et al. | Google Scholar | USA, 2020 | RA | NO | No information | Further investigation should be undertaken regarding the human factors and cognitive mechanisms that play a role in forensic decision-making, in order to improve comparison performance and criminal justice outcomes |
Cognitive Neuroscience in Forensic Science: Understanding and Utilizing the Human Element | Itiel E. Dror | Google Scholar | UK, 2015 | RA | CB | No information | These developments will improve forensic science, but they will necessitate some rethinking and reevaluation of existing procedures and ideas, just like any shift. As cognitive neuroscience offers numerous insights into the human factor, it can greatly influence changes and advancements in forensic science. |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Masood, T.; Mânica, S.; Pandey, H. The Most Common Types of Bias in a Human Bitemark Analysis. Oral 2024, 4, 113-125. https://doi.org/10.3390/oral4010010
Masood T, Mânica S, Pandey H. The Most Common Types of Bias in a Human Bitemark Analysis. Oral. 2024; 4(1):113-125. https://doi.org/10.3390/oral4010010
Chicago/Turabian StyleMasood, Tayyaba, Scheila Mânica, and Hemlata Pandey. 2024. "The Most Common Types of Bias in a Human Bitemark Analysis" Oral 4, no. 1: 113-125. https://doi.org/10.3390/oral4010010