Applications

• 1 - use the miller 6-pack method

  How - Whenever the expert is asked to analyse the forensic evidence, he/she should be given multiple comparison prints to assess rather than just one so they don’t ignore details that are not consistent - avoids expectancy bias

  Why - Miller’s filler-control method was effective in reducing the number of false matches
• 2 - ensure they don't know irrelevant details about the crime using LSU approach

  How - Analysts should be given prints from the crime scene with no information about it so they can make an initial analysis - saying how confident they are should also be part of standard practice. This could avoid selective attention bias when prior expectations about the crime/suspect could lead to the ‘filtering out’ of ambiguous elements

  Why - LSU/Hall and Player (those who did not read the crime scene report)
• 3 - Attend regular training events so they are up to date with regular practice and ways of avoiding bias

  How - Regular training including how to follow bottom-up approach when carrying out analysis and what they can do when asked to verify a print – e.g. not knowing the original analyst. This reduces the need determination bias when errors occur because there is too strong a desire to get evidence on a suspect and bring a case to court and also overconfidence bias

  Why - Dror showed there are several cognitive biases such as confirmation bias