Forensic expectations: Investigating a crime scene with prior information.

In a large body of research the influence of contextual information on decisions made in a broad range of disciplines has been studied. To date, the influence of these expectancy effects on the crime scene investigation has not been studied. In the present study we explored the effect of prior information given to crime scene investigators on their perception and interpretation of an ambiguous crime scene. Participants (N=58) were experienced crime scene investigators who were provided with a panoramic photograph of an ambiguous mock crime scene. The victim may have committed suicide or was murdered. Participants either received prior information indicating suicide, prior information indicating a violent death, or they received no prior information. Participants were asked about what they thought had happened at the scene of the crime, both at the initial assessment of the scene and at the end of the investigation when they were asked to describe the most likely scenario. They were also asked which traces they wanted to secure and why. Results showed that participants interpreted the crime scene differently dependent on how it was presented to them. Both the initial assessment of the scene and the most likely scenario that was described after the investigation were influenced by the prior information the participants were provided with, even though roughly the same traces were secured by all, independent of the prior information. Results demonstrate that prior information indeed influences the interpretation of the crime scene, but since the present study was exploratory further research is needed.

[1]  P. Granhag,et al.  Motivational Bias in Criminal Investigators' Judgments of Witness Reliability , 2007 .

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

[3]  Peter Webster,et al.  Practical Crime Scene Analysis and Reconstruction , 2010 .

[4]  M. Sjerps,et al.  Shoe print examinations: effects of expectation, complexity and experience. , 2007, Forensic science international.

[5]  Itiel E Dror,et al.  Cognitive neuroscience in forensic science: understanding and utilizing the human element , 2015, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[6]  Nj Tilley,et al.  Forensic science and crime investigation , 1996 .

[7]  N Rudin,et al.  The origin of evidence. , 2002, Forensic science international.

[8]  B. Bornstein,et al.  Rationality in medical decision making: a review of the literature on doctors' decision-making biases. , 2001, Journal of evaluation in clinical practice.

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

[10]  Richard Saferstein,et al.  Criminalistics: An introduction to forensic science , 1977 .

[11]  Miss A.O. Penney.  (b) , 1974, The New Yale Book of Quotations.

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

[13]  Steve D. Charman,et al.  Exploring the diagnostic utility of facial composites: beliefs of guilt can bias perceived similarity between composite and suspect. , 2009, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[14]  Melinda D. Merck,et al.  Crime Scene Investigation , 2013 .

[15]  Sherry Nakhaeizadeh,et al.  Cognitive bias in forensic anthropology: visual assessment of skeletal remains is susceptible to confirmation bias. , 2014, Science & justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society.

[16]  I. Dror,et al.  Cognitive and contextual influences in determination of latent fingerprint suitability for identification judgments. , 2013, Science & justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society.

[17]  Craig M. Cooley,et al.  Chapter 3 – Observer effects and examiner bias: Psychological influences on the forensic examiner , 2007 .

[18]  Does suggestive information cause a confirmation bias in bullet comparisons? , 2010, Forensic science international.

[19]  Ross M. Gardner,et al.  Practical Crime Scene Processing and Investigation , 2004 .

[20]  S. Haberman.  The Analysis of Residuals in Cross-Classified Tables , 1973 .

[21]  Chris Baber,et al.  Crime scene investigation as distributed cognition , 2006 .

[22]  D. Wyatt,et al.  Practising crime scene investigation: trace and contamination in routine work , 2014 .

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

[24]  Ewout H. Meijer,et al.  Contextual Bias in Verbal Credibility Assessment: Criteria‐Based Content Analysis, Reality Monitoring and Scientific Content Analysis , 2014 .

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

[26]  I. Dror,et al.  When emotions get the better of us: the effect of contextual top‐down processing on matching fingerprints , 2005 .

[27]  M J Saks,et al.  Context effects in forensic science: a review and application of the science of science to crime laboratory practice in the United States. , 2003, Science & justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society.

[28]  Nikola K P Osborne,et al.  Does contextual information bias bitemark comparisons? , 2014, Science & justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society.

[29]  K. Inman,et al.  Principles and Practice of Criminalistics: The Profession of Forensic Science , 2000 .

[30]  G. Ben-Shakhar,et al.  The effects of prior expectations and outcome knowledge on polygraph examiners' decisions , 1994 .

[31]  I. C. Stone.  Techniques of Crime Scene Investigation , 1993 .