Resolving differing expert opinions. Issue 1 (January 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Montani, Isabelle; Marquis, Raymond; Egli Anthonioz, Nicole; Champod, Christophe
• Is Part Of: Science & justice. Volume 59:Issue 1(2019)
• Page Start: 1
• Page End: 8
• Publication Date: 2019-01
• Subjects: Forensic sciences -- Periodicals; Criminal investigation -- Periodicals; Forensic Medicine -- Periodicals; Jurisprudence -- Periodicals; Criminalistique -- Périodiques; Enquêtes criminelles -- Périodiques; Criminal investigation; Forensic sciences; Electronic journals; Periodicals; 363.2505
• DOI: 10.1016/j.scijus.2018.10.003
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1355-0306

Abstract

Abstract: This paper explores procedural mechanisms to resolve differing conclusions when two experts have initially worked independently. These experts can be two human examiners or one of them may be a computer-based model. The resolving process is presented as part of the ACE-V protocol adopted widely in pattern recognition areas (e.g. fingerprints, footwear marks, toolmarks or handwritings/signatures comparisons). It set the conditions of operations and delineates a resolving process that is based on the principles of transparency and detailed argumentations. We predict a gradual but steady introduction of computer-based models in the forensic pattern recognition areas. In our opinion, the rules to resolve differing opinions ought to be articulated and documented in the form of standard operating procedures, before any deployment in casework practice. Highlights: A procedural guideline to resolve differing conclusions between two experts is proposed. Differing conclusions between an expert and a model are also addressed. The resolving processes are presented as part of the ACE-V protocol. A coherent, transparent and easily implemented framework is delivered.