1. Accuracy and reproducibility of conclusions by forensic bloodstain pattern analysts.
- Author
-
Hicklin RA, Winer KR, Kish PE, Parks CL, Chapman W, Dunagan K, Richetelli N, Epstein EG, Ausdemore MA, and Busey TA
- Subjects
- Forensic Medicine, Humans, Reproducibility of Results, Blood Stains, Expert Testimony, Observer Variation
- Abstract
Although the analysis of bloodstain pattern evidence left at crime scenes relies on the expert opinions of bloodstain pattern analysts, the accuracy and reproducibility of these conclusions have never been rigorously evaluated at a large scale. We investigated conclusions made by 75 practicing bloodstain pattern analysts on 192 bloodstain patterns selected to be broadly representative of operational casework, resulting in 33,005 responses to prompts and 1760 short text responses. Our results show that conclusions were often erroneous and often contradicted other analysts. On samples with known causes, 11.2% of responses were erroneous. The results show limited reproducibility of conclusions: 7.8% of responses contradicted other analysts. The disagreements with respect to the meaning and usage of BPA terminology and classifications suggest a need for improved standards. Both semantic differences and contradictory interpretations contributed to errors and disagreements, which could have serious implications if they occurred in casework., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)
- Published
- 2021
- Full Text
- View/download PDF