Previous issue (2020. Vol. 10, no. 2)
Included in Web of Science СС (ESCI)
Expert facial comparison evidence: Science versus pseudo science 1918
PhD, Senior Lecturer, Department of Psychology, Social Work and Allied Health Sciences, Glasgow Caledonian University
PhD, Lecturer, Department of Psychology, Social Work and Allied Health Service, Glasgow Caledonian University
PhD, Lecturer, School of Energy, Geoscience, Infrastructure and Society Heriot Watt University, Edinburgh Scotland, Heriot Watt University, Edinburgh Scotland
Confirming the identity of the accused is a critical component of many criminal trials. However, recent evidence suggests this process is highly error prone and leads to unacceptably high rates of wrongful conviction (Innocence Project, 2015). When photographic identification evidence is ambiguous, facial mapping practitioners may be called upon to make comparisons between images of the culprit and the accused. This practice assumes that the techniques employed are reliable and can be used to assist the court in making identity confirmation decisions. However, previous experimental work in this area has established that many of these techniques are unreliable (Kleinberg, Vanezis & Burton, 2007; Strathie, McNeill & White, 2012). We extend these findings by examining another facial mapping technique that uses gridlines, drawn between face-pairs, as a potential face matching aid (Oxlee, 2007). Results show that a simple side-by-side presentation of face-pairs without gridlines produces most accurate responding. Moreover, the application of the grideline technique increases the likelihood that two different face pairs will judged to be the same. These findings suggest that continuing to admit facial mapping evidence in court is likely to increase, rather than decrease, the incidence of wrongful conviction.
- ACPO (2003). National working practices in facial imaging.
Association of Chief Police Officers Working Group, unpublished document.
- ACPO (2009). Facial Identification Guidance 2009. Association of
Chief Police Officers Working Group. Retrieved January 10, 2015, from:
- Attorney General’s Reference (No. 2 of 2002) (2003). 1 CR. App. R. 321,
- Bromby M. (2003). At Face Value? The Use of Facial Mapping and CCTV
Image Analysis for Identification. New Law Journal: Expert Witness Supplement,
- Burton A.M., Wilson S., Cowan M., & Bruce V. (1999). Face
recognition in poor quality video: evidence from security surveillance.
Psychological Science, 10, 243-248.
- Burton A.M., White D., & McNeill A. (2010). The Glasgow Face
Matching Test. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 286-291.
- Bruce V., Henderson Z., Greenwood K., Hancock P., Burton A.M., &
Miller P. (1999). Verification of face identities from images
captured on video. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 5,
- Cutler B. L., & Penrod S. D. (1995). Mistaken identification:
The eyewitness, psychology, and the law. New York: Cambridge University
- Davis J., & Valentine T. (2009). CCTV on trial: Matching video
images with the defendant in the dock. Applied Cognitive Psychology,
- Davis J.P., Valentine T., & Davis R.E. (2010) Computer assisted
photo-anthropometric analyses of full-face and profile facial images.
Forensic Science International 200(1–3), 165–176.
- Edmond G., Biber K., Kemp R., & Porter G. (2009). Laws Looking
Glass: Expert Identification Evidence Derived from Photographic and Video
Images. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 20:3, 337-377.
- Edmond G., Kemp R., Porter G., Hamer D., Burton M., Biber K., & San
Roque M. (2010). Atkins v The Emperor: The cautious use of unreliable
expert opinion. The International Journal of Evidence and Proof, 14,
- FIAG (2006). Guidance for Evaluating Levels of Support. Forensic
Imagery Analysis Group. Retrieved January 10, 2015, from:
- Hole G. J. (1994). Configurational factors in the perception of
unfamiliar faces. Perception, 23, 65-74.
- Huff C. R., Rattner A., & Sagarin E. (1986). Guilty until proved
innocent: wrongful conviction and public policy. Crime & Delinquency,
- Innocence Project. (2015). Understand the causes: the causes of wrongful
conviction. Retrieved January 10, 2015, from: http://www.innocenceproject
- Iscan M.Y., & Loth S.R. (2000). Photo Image Identification. In
J. Siegel, G. Knupfer, & P. Saukko (Eds.), Encylopedia of Forensic
Science (pp. 795-807). London: Academic press.
- Kleinberg K.F., Vanezis P., & Burton A.M. (2007). Failure of
anthropometry as a facial identification technique using high-quality
photographs. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 52(4), 779-783.
- The Law Commission (2011). Expert evidence in criminal
proceedings in England and Wales. Retrieved January 10, 2015, from: https://
- Lindsay R. C. L., & Pozzulo J. D. (1999). Sources of eyewitness
identification errors. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 22,
- Liu C. H., Seetzen H, Burton A. M., & Chaudhuri A. (2003). Face
recognition is robust with incongruent image resolution. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Applied,9(1), 33-41.
- Megreya, A. M., & Burton, A. M. (2006). Unfamiliar faces are not
faces: Evidence from a matching task. Memory & Cognition34(4),
- Megreya, A. M., & Burton, A. M. (2007). Hits and false positives
in face matching: A familiarity-based dissociation. Perception and
Psychophysics, 69, 1175-1184.
- The Ministry of Justice (2013). The Government’s response to the Law
Commission report: Expert evidence in criminal proceedings in England and
Wales. Retrieved January 10, 2015, from: https://www.gov.uk/government
/uploads/system/ uploads/attachment _
- Moreton R., & Morley J. (2011). Investigation into the use of
photoanthropometry in facial image comparison. Forensic Science International,
- Narby D. J., Cutler B. L., & Penrod S. D. (1996). The effects of
witness, target, and situational factors on eyewitness identifications. In S.
L. Sporer, R. S. Malpass, & G. Koehnken (Eds.), Psychological issues in
eyewitness identification (pp. 23-52). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum
- Oxlee G. (2007). Facial Recognition and Imagery Analysis. In: T.
Thompson, & S. M. Black (Eds.), Forensic Human Identification: An
Introduction (pp. 257-270). Taylor and Francis, Florida.
- Pezdek K. (2012). Fallible eyewitness memory and identification. In
B. L. Cutler (Ed.), Conviction of the innocent: Lessons from psychological
research (pp. 105-124). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological
- Porter G., & Doran G. (2000). An anatomical and photographic
technique for forensic facial identification. Forensic Science International,
- Reuters. (2007). Court told de Menezes photo manipulated. Retrieved January
10, 2015, from:
- Rossion B. (2009). Distinguishing the cause and consequence of face
inversion: the perceptual field hypothesis. Acta Psychologica, 132,
- Scheck, B., Neufeld, P., & Dwyer, J. (2000). Actual innocence: Five
days to execution and other dispatches from the wrongly convicted. New
- Security News Desk. (2015). British Security Industry Association attempts
to clarify question of how many CCTV cameras there are in the UK. Retrieved
January 10, 2015, from:
- Stavrianos C., Zouloumis L., Papadopoulos C., Emmanouil J., Petalotis
N., & Tsakmalis P. (2012). Facial Mapping: Review of Current Methods.
Research Journal of Medical Sciences, 6: 77-82.
- Strathie A., McNeill A., & White D. (2012). In the Dock:
Chimeric Image Composites Reduce Identification Accuracy. Applied Cognitive
Psychology, 26(1), 140-148.
- Strathie A. (2010). Person Identification in a Legal Setting
(Unpublished doctoral thesis). Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow.
- R v Atkins and Atkins, (2009). EWCA Crim 1876.
- Tanaka J. W., & Farah M. (1993). Parts and wholes in face
recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46,
- Vanezis P., & Brierley C. (1996). Facial image comparison of
crime suspects using video superimposition. Science and Justice, 36,
- Wells G. L. (1978). Applied eyewitness-testimony research: System
variables and estimator variables. Journal of Experimental
- Wells G. L., & Bradfield A. L. (1999). Distortions in
eyewitnesses’ recollections: Can the postidentification-feedback effect be
moderated? Psychological Science, 10, 138-144.
- Wells G. L., Malpass R. S., Lindsay R. C. L., Fisher R. P., Turtle J.
W., & Fulero S. M. (2000). From the lab to the police station: A
successful application of eyewitness research. American Psychologist,
- Wells G. L., Memon A., & Penrod S. (2006). Eyewitness evidence.
Improving itsprobative value. Psychological science in the Public Interest,
- Wells G. L., Small M., Penrod S. J., Malpass R. S., Fulero S. M., &
Brimacombe C. A. E. (1998). Eyewitness identification procedures:
Recommendations for lineups and photospreads. Law and Human Behavior, 22,
- Westcott H., & Brace N. (2002). Psychological factors in witness
evidence and identification. In N. Brace, & H. Westcott (Eds.), Applying
psychology (pp. 117-178). Milton Keynes: Open University.
- Wright D. B., & Davies G. M. (1999). Eyewitness testimony. In F.
Durso, R. Nickerson, R. W. Schanveldt, S. T. Dumais, D. S. Lindsay, & M. T.
H. Chi (Eds.), A Handbook of Applied Cognition (pp. 789-818). Chichester:
- Young A.W., Hellawell D., & Hay D.C. (1987). Configurational
information in face perception. Perception, 16, 747–759.