Identification at the crime scene: The sooner, the better? The interpretation of rapid identification information by CSIs at the crime scene.

New technologies will allow Crime Scene Investigators (CSIs) in the near future to analyse traces at the crime scene and receive identification information while still conducting the investigation. These developments could have considerable effects on the way an investigation is conducted. CSIs may start reasoning based on possible database-matches which could influence scenario formation (i.e. the construction of narratives that explain the observed traces) during very early phases of the investigation. The goal of this study is to gain more insight into the influence of the rapid identification information on the reconstruction of the crime and the evaluation of traces by addressing two questions, namely 1) is scenario formation influenced from the moment that ID information is provided and 2) do database matches influence the evaluation of traces and the reconstruction of the crime. We asked 48 CSIs from England to investigate a potential murder crime scene on a computer. Our findings show that the interpretation of the crime scene by CSIs is affected by the moment identification information is provided. This information has a higher influence on scenario formation when provided after an initial scenario has been formed. Also, CSIs seem to attach great value to traces that produce matches with databases and hence yield a name of a known person. Similar traces that did not provide matches were considered less important. We question whether this kind of selective attention is desirable as it may cause ignorance of other relevant information at the crime scene.

[1]  Michelle Wright.  Homicide Detectives' Intuition , 2013 .

[2]  A. Broeders.  Op zoek naar de bron : over de grondslagen van de criminalistiek en de waardering van het forensisch bewijs , 2003 .

[3]  Barbara O'Brien.  Prime suspect: An examination of factors that aggravate and counteract confirmation bias in criminal investigations. , 2009 .

[4]  C. Berger,et al.  Crime Scene Investigation, Archaeology and Taphonomy: Reconstructing Activities at Crime Scenes , 2017 .

[5]  J. Klayman.  Varieties of Confirmation Bias , 1995 .

[6]  Itiel E. Dror,et al.  The Paradoxical Brain: The paradox of human expertise: why experts get it wrong , 2011 .

[7]  Shelley E. Taylor,et al.  Social cognition, 2nd ed. , 1991 .

[8]  H. Crombag,et al.  Anchored Narratives: The Psychology of Criminal Evidence , 1994 .

[9]  A Jamieson.  A rational approach to the principles and practice of crime scene investigation: I. Principles. , 2004, Science & justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society.

[10]  J. Shanteau.  How much information does an expert use? Is it relevant? , 1992 .

[11]  A. Kloosterman,et al.  DNA in the Criminal Justice System: The DNA Success Story in Perspective , , 2015, Journal of forensic sciences.

[12]  K. Ask,et al.  The making of an expert detective: the role of experience in English and Norwegian police officers’ investigative decision-making , 2016 .

[13]  Ian W. Evett,et al.  A Bayesian approach to interpreting footwear marks in forensic casework , 1998 .

[14]  Chris Baber,et al.  Expertise in Crime Scene Examination , 2012, Hum. Factors.

[15]  S. Kassin,et al.  Behavioral Confirmation in the Interrogation Room: On the Dangers of Presuming Guilt , 2003, Law and human behavior.

[16]  Itiel E Dror,et al.  Emotional Experiences and Motivating Factors Associated with Fingerprint Analysis , 2010, Journal of forensic sciences.

[17]  Mitchell Holland,et al.  Evaluation of the RapidHIT™ 200, an automated human identification system for STR analysis of single source samples. , 2015, Forensic science international. Genetics.

[18]  D. Kahneman.  Thinking, Fast and Slow , 2011 .

[19]  Henk Elffers,et al.  The Influence of New Technologies on the Visual Attention of CSIs Performing a Crime Scene Investigation , 2016, Journal of forensic sciences.

[20]  P. Granhag,et al.  Motivational sources of confirmation bias in criminal investigations: the need for cognitive closure , 2005 .

[21]  David Carson,et al.  The Abduction of Sherlock Holmes , 2009 .

[22]  Martin Innes,et al.  Investigating Murder: Detective Work and the Police Response to Criminal Homicide , 2003 .

[23]  Henk Elffers,et al.  Reconstructing with trace information: Does rapid identification information lead to better crime reconstructions? , 2017 .

[24]  Claude Roux,et al.  From Forensics to Forensic Science , 2012 .

[25]  Christianne J de Poot,et al.  Forensic expectations: Investigating a crime scene with prior information. , 2016, Science & justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society.

[26]  David Charlton,et al.  Why Experts Make Errors , 2006 .

[27]  William C. Thompson,et al.  The Daubert/Kumho Implications of Observer Effects in Forensic Science: Hidden Problems of Expectation and Suggestion , 2002 .

[28]  R. Nickerson.  Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises , 1998 .

[29]  C. V. D. Eeden,et al.  Forensic expectations: Investigating a crime scene with prior information , 2016 .

[30]  I. Dror,et al.  Subjectivity and bias in forensic DNA mixture interpretation. , 2011, Science & justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society.

[31]  M. Scott,et al.  The Multiple Dimensions of Tunnel Vision in Criminal Cases , 2006 .

[32]  G. A. Miller.  THE PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW THE MAGICAL NUMBER SEVEN, PLUS OR MINUS TWO: SOME LIMITS ON OUR CAPACITY FOR PROCESSING INFORMATION 1 , 1956 .

[33]  I. Dror,et al.  Contextual information renders experts vulnerable to making erroneous identifications. , 2006, Forensic science international.

[34]  I. Dror,et al.  The forensic confirmation bias: Problems, perspectives, and proposed solutions. , 2013 .

[35]  C. Nee,et al.  Review of expertise and its general implications for correctional psychology and criminology , 2015 .

[36]  G. Klein,et al.  A recognition-primed decision (RPD) model of rapid decision making. , 1993 .

[37]  D. Rossmo.  Criminal Investigative Failures , 2008 .