Commentary on: Curley LJ, Munro J, Lages M, MacLean R, Murray J. Assessing cognitive bias in forensic decisions: a review and outlook. J Forensic Sci doi: 10.1111/1556-4029.14220. Epub 2019 Nov 6.

In their recent critical review titled “Assessing Cognitive Bias in Forensic Decisions: A Review and Outlook,” Curley et al. 1 offer a confused and incomplete discussion of “task relevance” in forensic science. Their failure to adopt a clear and appropriate definition of “task relevance” undermines the central conclusion of their article—the assertion that it is not necessarily an error for forensic scientists to rely on task-irrelevant information and that “task-irrelevant contextual information may sometimes aid forensic decision makers.” This conceptual flaw in the article becomes clear when we define “task relevance” appropriately, in the manner it was defined by the U.S. National Commission on Forensic Science 2. The Commission’s definition provides a bright-line standard for distinguishing contextual information that is helpful and should be considered from contextual information that is unhelpful and should not be considered. Once that matter is clarified, it becomes possible to discuss intelligently whether steps should be taken to minimize examiners’ exposure to task-irrelevant information in order to reduce the potential for contextual bias.This letter to the editor is published as Thompson, William C. "Commentary on: Curley LJ, Munro J, Lages M, MacLean R, Murray J. Assessing cognitive bias in forensic decisions: a review and outlook. J Forensic Sci." Journal of forensic sciences 65, no. 2 (2020): 666-667. Posted with permission of CSAFE.</p

An American Advantage? How American and Swiss Criminal Defense Attorneys Evaluate Forensic DNA Evidence

AbstractCritics of the American system of justice sometimes perceive “inquisitorialism” as an attractive alternative. In this article we will report a comparative study investigating the way forensic DNA evidence is handled in criminal prosecutions in the Swiss and American systems, focusing particularly on the behavior of criminal defense lawyers. We will argue that the successes and failures of American and Swiss lawyers in this context offer important insights into the relative strengths and limitations of adversarial and non-adversarial legal systems

Ditching Investigation of a Dynamic Model of a HU2K-1 Helicopter

Various configurations and approach conditions were investigated in order to determine the ditching behavior and the best ditching procedure. When ditchings were made without the float bags, the model rolled over on its side; when ditchings were made with the float bags inflated, the model remained upright. Late-flare and early-flare ditchings gave the same general behavior. Slight damage to the bottom surface of the scale-strength fuselage resulted for all test conditions

Ditching Investigation of a 1/18-Scale Model of the North American B-45 Airplane

An investigation of a 1/18-scale dynamically similar model of the North American B-45 airplane was made to observe the ditching behavior and determine the proper landing technique to be used in an emergency water landing. Various conditions of damage were simulated to determine the behavior which probably would occur in a full-scale ditching. The behavior of the model was determined from high-speed motion-picture records, time-history acceleration records, and visual observations. It was concluded that the airplane should be ditched at the maximum nose-high attitude with the landing flaps full down for minimum landing speed. During the ditching, the nose-wheel and bomb-bay doors probably will be torn away and the rear of the fuselage flooded. A violent dive will very likely occur. Longitudinal decelerations of approximately 5g and vertical accelerations of approximately -6g (including gravity) will be experienced near the pilots' compartment. Ditching braces installed in the bomb bay will tend to improve the behavior slightly but will be torn away along with the bomb-bay doors. A hydroflap installed ahead of the nose-wheel doors will eliminate the dive and failure of the nose-wheel doors, and substantially reduce the motions and accelerations

Assessing the admissibility of a new generation of forensic voice comparison testimony

This article provides a primer on forensic voice comparison (aka forensic speaker recognition), a branch of forensic science in which the forensic practitioner analyzes a voice recording in order to provide an expert opinion that will help the trier-of-fact determine the identity of the speaker. The article begins with an explanation of ways in which human speech varies within and between speakers. It then discusses different technical approaches that forensic practitioners have used to compare voice recordings, and frameworks of reasoning that practitioners have used for evaluating the evidence and reporting its strength. It then discusses procedures for empirical validation of the performance of forensic voice comparison systems. It also discusses the potential influence of contextual bias and ways to reduce this. Building on this scientific foundation, the article then offers analysis, commentary, and recommendations on how courts evaluate the admissibility of forensic voice comparison testimony under the Daubert and Frye standards. It reviews past rulings such as U.S. v. Angleton, 269 F.Supp 2nd 892 (S.D. Tex. 2003) that found expert testimony based on the spectrographic approach inadmissible under Daubert. The article also offers a detailed analysis of the evidence presented in the recent Daubert hearing in U.S. v. Ahmed, et al. 2015 EDNY 12-CR-661, which included testimony based on the newer automatic approach. The scientific testimony proffered in Ahmed is used to illustrate the issues courts are likely to face when considering the admissibility of forensic voice comparison testimony in the future. The article concludes with a discussion of how proponents of forensic voice comparison testimony might meet a reasonably rigorous application of the Daubert standard and thereby ensure that such testimony is sufficiently trustworthy to be used in court