Contemporary composite techniques: The impact of a forensically‐relevant target delay

Abstract

Purpose. Previous laoratory-based research suggests that facial composites, or pictures of suspected criminals, from UK computerized systems are named correctly about 20% of the time. The current work compares composites from several such systems following a more realistic interval between seeing an 'assailant' and constructing a composite. Included are those used by police in the UK (E-FIT, PROfit and sketch), and the USA (FACES), and a system in development (EvoFIT).\ud Method. Participant-witnesses inspected a photograph of a celebrity for 1 minute and then 2 days later constructed a composite from one of these systems using a procedure closely matching that found in police work; for example, the use of a Cognitive Interview and computer operators/artists who were appropriately trained and experienced. Evaluation was assessed mainly by asking independent observers to name the composites. Two common auxiliary measures were used, requiring composites to be matched to their targets (sorting), and photographs to be chosen from an array of alternatives (line-up).\ud Results. Composite naming was surprisingly low (3% overall), with sketches named best at 8%. Whereas composite sorting revealed a broadly similar pattern to naming, photo line-ups gave a poor match.\ud Conclusion. With a 2 days delay to construction, the results suggest that, while likenesses can be achieved, few composites would be named in police work. The composite sorting data provide further evidence that the computerized systems tested perform equivalently but are poorer than the manually-generated sketches. Lastly, the data suggest that line-ups may be a poor instrument for evaluating facial composites

Whole-face procedures for recovering facial images from memory

“…In the lab, feature systems occasionally recover an identifiable image from memory under forensicallyrelevant delays (e.g. Frowd, Carson, Ness, McQuiston et al, 2005;Frowd, Bruce, Ness et al, 2007;Frowd et al, 2010), with apparently similar identification for police practitioners , and so improving their performance is likely to have increased utility for the detection of offenders using this type of technology.…”

“…It is under these circumstances that identifications arising from feature-based composites tend to be infrequent in police investigations (Frowd, Hancock et al, 2011), an observation supported by laboratory research (e.g. Frowd, Carson, Ness, McQuiston et al, 2005;Frowd, McQuistonSurrett et al, 2007;Frowd et al, 2010;Koehn & Fisher, 1997;Kovera, Penrod, Pappas & Thill, 1997). In fact, many practitioners find it extremely hard to create a composite with witnesses that have poor face recall; also, under these circumstances, UK police guidelines advise against production of a feature-based composite (ACPO, 2009).…”

“…Wells, Memon & Penrod, 2007) for use in forensic and other applications and contains a set of memory-facilitating techniques or mnemonics to facilitate information recall. For face construction, mnemonics normally include a request to describe the face (a) in an uninterrupted (free-recall) format, (b) in as much detail as possible but (c) without guessing (for more details, see Frowd, Carson, Ness, McQuiston et al, 2005).…”

“…Ellis, Shepherd & Davies, 1980), which is arguably the Achilles' heel of the feature systems (e.g. Frowd, Carson, Ness, McQuiston et al, 2005), face recognition remains largely intact after a forensically-relevant interval of several weeks (e.g. Shepherd, 1983).…”

Evolving the memory of a criminal’s face: methods to search a face space more effectively

“…Following a realistic delay of several days, recognition tends to be very poor indeed (e.g. [17,18]). …”