{"id":10750,"global_id":"forensicstats.org?id=10750","global_id_lineage":["forensicstats.org?id=10750"],"author":"62","status":"publish","date":"2021-07-28 11:21:41","date_utc":"2021-07-28 16:21:41","modified":"2021-10-11 10:42:42","modified_utc":"2021-10-11 15:42:42","url":"https:\/\/forensicstats.org\/event\/webinar-accuracy-and-reproducibility-of-conclusions-by-forensic-bloodstain-pattern-analysis\/","rest_url":"https:\/\/forensicstats.org\/wp-json\/tribe\/events\/v1\/events\/10750","title":"Webinar: Bloodstain Pattern Analysis Black Box Study","description":"

CSAFE invites researchers, collaborators, and members of the broader forensics and statistics communities to participate in our Fall 2021 Webinar Series on Thursday, October 14th, 2021, from 11:00am-Noon CDT.<\/strong> The presentation will be \u201cBloodstain Pattern Analysis Black Box Study.\u201d\u00a0<\/b><\/em><\/p>\n

Presenters: <\/strong>
\nAustin Hicklin
\nNoblis Forensic Science Group, Director<\/p>\n

Paul Kish
\nForensic Consultant, Paul Erwin Kish Forensic Consultant and Associates<\/p>\n

Kevin Winer
\nDirector, Kansas City Police Crime Laboratory<\/p>\n

Presentation Description:<\/strong>
\nThis study was conducted to assess the accuracy and reproducibility of BPA conclusions. 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 1,760 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. Paul Kish, Kevin Winer, and Noblis conducted the study under a grant from the U.S. National Institute of Justice (NIJ).<\/p>\n

Associated Reading:<\/strong>
\nAccuracy and Reproducibility of Conclusions by Forensic Bloodstain Pattern Analysts<\/a><\/p>\n

The webinars are free and open to the public, but researchers, collaborators and members of the broader forensics and statistics communities are encouraged to attend. Each 60-minute webinar will allow for discussion and questions.<\/em><\/p>\n

Sign up on the form below<\/strong> (Chrome & Safari web browsers work the best):<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n