Aim: In the two-part study, the article from Science about Itiel Dror's work is summarized, and then in this second part, his studies related to forensic pathology are studied in detail, with commentaries. All of the results are compared to other scientific papers. Methodology: After summarizing the second half of the Science article, the study performs a synthesis of numerous commentaries and other international papers. The authors' points of view are summarised at the end of the study. Findings: The cognitive bias of forensic experts can have a serious impact on the jurisdiction, yet detailed research on the topic had only started after the infamous mistaken identifications around the turn of the millennium. Itiel Dror's role in this is pioneering and undoubted, although this paper clarifies some of his statements, and discusses them in agreement with other authors. We also consider the unilateral presentation of bias to be dangerous. Bias cannot be eliminated or excluded, but with certain techniques, the forensic practitioner can try to reduce the danger. Value: The study provides a comprehensive picture of the problem of expert bias through the work of Itiel Dror, and also offers useful solutions to mitigate it.
Read full abstract