The process of facial composite production

Facial composites remain an important tool for the apprehension of suspects. While research has led to an improvement in composite quality, contemporary systems rarely produce highly identifiable renditions in realistic studies. The current work manipulated the type of interview administered, as well as the composite face first presented to witnesses during construction. In the study, witnesses received a short exposure to a target face, then 2 days later were given a Cognitive Interview, a Holistic Interview (a set of personality ratings) or no interview. They then constructed a composite with the modern PROfit system in the normal way, by first setting the feature descriptors to obtain an ‘initial’ composite, or by proceeding from the ‘default’ composite, the first face displayed when PROfit is run. Although the composites were not named spontaneously, the result of an identification task revealed an advantage for the Holistic Interview when used with an ‘initial’ composite

Communicating Opinion Evidence in the Forensic Identification Sciences: Accuracy and Impact

How forensic identification experts describe their observations and express their opinions in court can be expected to have important effects on what jurors and judges conclude from this evidence. But the communication of findings from forensic identification analyses can be challenging as experts try to express their results accurately: without error, exaggeration or intentionally or unintentionally misleading fact finders. In this Article, we discuss how fact finders interpret and respond to the expert testimony of forensic science examiners, and how expert testimony can be made most informative. We first describe the results of several empirical studies we have done which demonstrate how variations in the way forensic expert testimony is presented affects the conclusions fact finders draw concerning the evidence. Next, with the help of research in the area of risk communication, as well as forensic communication, we explore ways in which the communication of forensic identification examination results might be improved. We then turn to a review of the relevant literature on fact finders\u27 interpretation of statistical and probability evidence as it applies to forensic identification, and the limited extent to which opposing experts and cross-examination counter the influence of an expert\u27s testimony

Contemporary composite techniques: the impact of a forensically-relevant target delay.

Purpose. Previous laoratory-based research suggests that facial composites, or pictures of suspected criminals, from UK computerized systems are named correctly about 20% of the time. The current work compares composites from several such systems following a more realistic interval between seeing an 'assailant' and constructing a composite. Included are those used by police in the UK (E-FIT, PROfit and sketch), and the USA (FACES), and a system in development (EvoFIT).Method. Participant-witnesses inspected a photograph of a celebrity for 1 minute and then 2 days later constructed a composite from one of these systems using a procedure closely matching that found in police work; for example, the use of a Cognitive Interview and computer operators/artists who were appropriately trained and experienced. Evaluation was assessed mainly by asking independent observers to name the composites. Two common auxiliary measures were used, requiring composites to be matched to their targets (sorting), and photographs to be chosen from an array of alternatives (line-up).Results. Composite naming was surprisingly low (3% overall), with sketches named best at 8%. Whereas composite sorting revealed a broadly similar pattern to naming, photo line-ups gave a poor match.Conclusion. With a 2 days delay to construction, the results suggest that, while likenesses can be achieved, few composites would be named in police work. The composite sorting data provide further evidence that the computerized systems tested perform equivalently but are poorer than the manually-generated sketches. Lastly, the data suggest that line-ups may be a poor instrument for evaluating facial composites