Write a one page paper on the problems you see with observer effects and bias in crime reconstruction and what practice standards for reconstructing a crime you would personally use to reduce or eliminate this bias. 

Assignment One Reading – Introduction to Basic Crime Reconstruction

Welcome to Basic Crime Reconstruction. Reconstructing a crime is not a magical process or the result of some supernatural insight that is available to only a select few. Rather, it is the result of pain-staking forensic investigation and logical deduction. This course will not make you a crime scene re-constructionist. What it will do is to help you take all of the factors including forensic evidence, witness statements, suspect statements, and other evidence; and enable you through the process of logical deduction to sequence the events involved in the crime.
I. What is Crime Scene Reconstruction?
We are going to focus on something we call holistic crime reconstruction. As defined by W. Jerry Chisum and Brent Turvey in their book “Crime Reconstruction”, holistic crime reconstruction “is the development of actions and circumstances based on the system of evidence discovered and examined in relation to a particular crime.”
As part of this type of reconstruction we’re going to focus on all aspects of the crime. The shortcoming of many crime reconstruction methodologies is that they focus on only one aspect of the evidence such as forensics or witness statements or the suspect statements, etc.. The idea behind holistic crime reconstruction is to bring together all of the information about a particular crime and to use all of that information in the reconstruction. You must treat all items of information involved in the crime as interrelated.
II. Forensic Technicians, Forensic Specialists, and Forensic Generalists
A. Forensic Technician – A forensic technician is trained in specific procedures related to collecting, packaging, labeling, and even performing some tests at the crime scene. As long as the technician knows how the task should be performed, there is no real need for them to understand the scientific method or the greater principles of forensic science.
B. Forensic Specialist – A forensic specialist is someone who has extensive expertise and training in the analysis of physical evidence in a particular specialty area. An example of this would a fingerprint examiner in a laboratory or a ballistics expert. They normally are employed in a crime laboratory and not out on the street like a technician.
C. Forensic Generalist – A forensic generalist is broadly educated and is trained in a variety of forensic specialties. He is a broad picture guy – not an absolute expert in any one area, but has considerable expertise in many different areas. In fact, you could say that his major area of expertise is in the interpretation of evidence and how it fits into the crime puzzle.
III. Crime Reconstruction as the Culmination of a Process – The reconstruction of a crime is the last step in a long and methodical process that each piece of evidence/information goes through. The steps in this process and who is normally responsible for the evidence at each step are:
A. Recognition (detective/investigator/forensic technician) – This is the recognition that a piece of material or information is evidence related to the case.
B. Preservation (detective/investigator/forensic technician) – This is where the necessary steps are taken to preserve the evidence or information.
C. Documentation (detective/investigator/forensic technician) – The necessary photos are taken of the evidence and the necessary notes made.
D. Collection (detective/investigator/forensic technician) – The evidence is collected and appropriately packaged and labeled.
E. Transportation (detective/investigator/forensic technician) – The evidence is transported to the evidence locker/property room or to the crime laboratory ensuring that chain of custody is preserved.
F. Identification/Classification (forensic specialist) – This is the practice of categorizing the evidence according to its characteristics such as weight, color, chemical composition, etc. An example of this is when the lab identifies the white powder as cocaine.
G. Comparison (forensic specialist) – This is the examination of two or more items to establish similarities and dissimilarities between them. An example is when you ask the lab to compare a latent print to known fingerprint.
H. Individuation (forensic specialist) – This is the establishment of the uniqueness of an item through examination and experimentation to show that no other item is exactly like the item in question. An example of this would be the DNA analysis of a blood drop showing that it could not have come from any one other than the person it matches.
I. Interpretation/Reconstruction (forensic generalist) – This is where the significance of the evidence or information is determined and how it fits into the puzzle that is your crime.
Even though the above listed process is primarily slanted towards physical forensic evidence, many of the steps also apply to information such as witness testimony that also helps you put together the puzzle.

END OF READING

5

I. Observer Effects and Examiner Bias

Chisum and Turvey quote Paul L. Kirk, who was a pioneering criminalist, about the interpretation of evidence, “Physical evidence cannot be wrong, it cannot be perjured, it cannot be wholly absent. Only in its interpretation can there be error.” (Chisum, p. 51). This becomes a real issue because a great deal of the evidence we deal with can be interpreted in various ways depending on a number of subjective influences.

A. Observer Effects – Observer effects can be both conscious and subconscious. Both conscious and subconscious needs and expectations shape both our perception of facts and their interpretation. It can affect what is recognized as evidence, what is collected, what is examined, and how it is interpreted. At its most basic, an observer effect is a psychological bias or effect on the observer’s part that distorts how the evidence is recognized, collect, examined, or interpreted. It is often subconscious (below the level of awareness) on the part of the observer and may significantly affect the reconstruction of the crime. We all have them and the question thus becomes, not whether I have them, but how do I guard against them and eliminate their influence on my reconstruction.

B. Potential Observer Effects

1. Ambiguity and Subjectivity – Ambiguity is a factor when evidence or circumstances are incomplete, murky, or equivocal. Subjectivity is a factor when identifications and interpretations rest on the examiner’s experiences or beliefs. They become problematic when the examiner or investigator believes that his experience is all that is required to render an identification. There are at least three areas in reconstruction where subjectivity can show up: 1) evidence collection; 2) evidence quantity and quality; 3) lack of standards for qualifying the results of comparative analysis and identification (Chisum, p. 59). The occurrence of ambiguous physical evidence as well as evidence that is susceptible to subjective interpretation opens the way for subconscious observer effects to affect the results you obtain.

2. Lure of Expectation – We as investigators are often put in situations where we have access to information that can give rise to conscious or unconscious expectations. One of the most common expectations of this type is that the subject must be guilty of something even if they are not guilty of the crime of which they are accused. I once had another officer tell me (in reference to a real thug/scumbag that was a suspect in a homicide) that even if he had not done the crime, to charge him would not be a great miscarriage of justice. We work in a pro-prosecution environment where the suspect’s guilt is suspected and anticipated and this may lead to subconsciously developing pre-examination expectations that may influence the results (Chisum, p. 60).

3. Single Sample Testing – Evidence that is turned over to forensic examiners tends to fall into one of three catetories: 1) samples taken from the crime scene; 2) samples taken from the victim; 3) samples provided by the suspect (Chisum, p. 60). Single sample testing has been shown to directly affect whether an examiner’s report will associate the suspect’s with the crime scene or victim.

4. Prescreened Evidence – Even the best and most committed reconstructionist can be tripped up by having insufficient evidence. The problem with prescreened evidence occurs when the reconstructionist is given only a narrow amount of the physical evidence necessary to reach an informed conclusion. This prescreening of the evidence can come from anywhere – prosecuting attorneys, defense attorneys, superior officers, other investigators, etc. In fact, it can come from anyone who wants the reconstructionist to reach a particular outcome that the person providing the evidence favors. It is absolutely critical that we have access to all the evidence and information in a case, whether it appears relevant or not. That is the only way we can make an informed and unbiased interpretation.

5. Contradictory Findings – This can occur when you have more than one forensic expert involved in examining the same evidence. The problem arises when the evidence and interpretation are re-examined and one or more of the experts tailors his conclusions and interpretations so that they match the others.

6. Selective Re-examination – This can occur when there are contradictory findings and the prosecutor, defense attorney, or investigator pushes for a re-examination of the evidence by the expert whose conclusion is inconsistent with their preferred theory. The push is for them to re-examine the evidence and bring their findings into line with the findings of the other examiners.

C. Neutralizing Observer Effects and Examiner Bias – There are a number of reforms that can be put in place in forensic laboratories to help neutralize bias. These are beyond the scope of this course and our positions as investigators. The number one thing we can do as investigators is to be aware of the existence of observer effects, their subconscious nature, and their effect on how we perceive and interpret the evidence. I cannot emphasize enough that this requires an absolute commitment to truth and honesty, no matter the cost or where they lead. Be aware of your own biases (we all have them) and guard against them. Never fall in love with a theory and always be ready to modify or discard your theory when evidence contradicts it. You must have an absolute commitment to examining and understanding all of the information and evidence in the case and not just part of it.

II. Practice Standards Related to Crime Reconstruction – There are certain ethical standards that must be maintained in relation to crime reconstruction: (Chisum, pp. 116-123)

A. The reconstruction must diligently try to avoid bias;

B. All relevant evidence and information must be considered in order to perform and adequate reconstruction;

C. The reconstructionist must determine if the evidence is of sufficient quality to provide the basis for a reconstruction.

D. The reconstructionist must visit the crime scene in person;

E. The reconstructionist must make his conclusions and the basis for them in writing;

F. The reconstructionist must have an understanding of science, forensic science, and the scientific method;

G. The conclusions MUST be based on established facts – no fact may be assumed for the purpose of the analysis;

H. Any conclusions must be valid inferences based on logical arguments and analytical reasoning;

I. The conclusions must be made through the use of the scientific method – that is put the conclusions to the test; and

J. Any evidence, data, or findings on which the conclusions are based must be made available through presentation of the evidence itself or through citation of a source that can be examined by others.

Even though these standards technically apply to someone who is declared an expert in crime reconstruction, they also should apply to us as investigators as we try to reconstruct the crime through our investigations. The paramount idea is one that I have tried to practice in every investigation I have ever done –
Seek the Total Truth and Follow It Wherever It May Lead!!
As trite as it may sound, we are the finders of fact and it is up to others to determine guilt or innocence based on the facts we find. Therefore we can never afford to manipulate or shade the facts in any manner. We have to present the total facts – everything we know about the case to the triers of fact. I truly believe that homicide investigation is sacred trust that I can never violate except at great peril to everything I swore to protect. Enough said!

END OF READING

Chisum, W. Jerry and Brent E. Turvey. Crime Reconstruction. Amsterdam: Academic Press-Elsevier, 2007.