1

Scientific & Technical Review 

Panel Final Report for 

2021-S-0011

Standards for the Technical 

Review of Bloodstain Pattern 

Analysis Reporting

Organization of Scientific Area Committees (OSAC) for Forensic Science
2

STRP Final Report

2021-S-0011

Standard for the Technical Review of 

Bloodstain Pattern Analysis Reporting

Organization of Scientific Area Committees (OSAC) for Forensics Science

August 19, 2021

Disclaimer:

This report was produced by an independent Scientific and Technical Review Panel (STRP). The 

views expressed in the report do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. 

Government. Visit the OSAC website for more information on OSAC’s STRP process.

Scientific & Technical Review Panel Members

• Tasha Bauman, Wyoming Game and Fish Department

• Barbara Hervey, Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

• Leah Innocci, Wyoming State Crime Lab

• Rick Lempert, University of Michigan (emeritus)

• Kenneth Martin, Bevel, Gardner and Associates, Inc.

• Michael Van Stratton, Kansas Bureau of Investigation Forensic Science Laboratory
3

Report Summary:

The Scientific and Technical Review Panel (STRP) for “Standard for the Technical Review of 

Bloodstain Pattern Analysis Reporting” is an independent panel appointed by the National 

Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). A STRP is established with a range of experts to 

consider how well a standard meets the needs of the forensic science, law enforcement, and legal 

communities, and to recommend improvements to the standards under review. The STRP 

appreciates the efforts of LeeAnn Singley, Bloodstain Pattern Analysis Subcommittee member, 

while serving as the subcommittee liaison to this STRP during the review process. 

The STRP began its review process with a kickoff meeting on May 4, 2021 and concluded with 

this STRP final report. The panel reviewed the draft and prepared our written responses for the

OSAC Bloodstain Pattern Analysis Subcommittee. All comments by the STRP were the result 

of a consensus among its members. The draft standard and STRP comments were returned to the 

Bloodstain Pattern Subcommittee for consideration. 

Report Components:

The STRP reviewed this draft standard against OSAC’s STRP Instructions for Review which 

include the following content areas: scientific and technical merit, human factors, quality 

assurance, scope and purpose, terminology, method description and reporting results. The details 

below contain a brief description of each reviewed content area and the STRP’s assessment of 

how that content was addressed in the Draft OSAC Proposed Standard. 

1. Scientific and Technical Merit: OSAC-approved standards must have strong scientific 

foundations so that the methods practitioners employ are scientifically valid, and the 

resulting claims are trustworthy. In addition, standards for methods or interpretation of 

results must include the expression and communication of the uncertainties in measurements 

or other results.

1.1 Consensus View – The STRP finds this standard to be technically sound and 

believes, upon consideration and adoption of the final few recommendations 

below, this document will be a valuable tool to the BPA community. The 

STRP is pleased that a number of earlier suggestions made to the BPA 

Subcommittee were considered and are reflected in the final document.

2. Human Factors: All forensic science methods rely on human performance in acquiring, 

examining, reporting, and testifying to the results. In the examination phase, some standards 

rely heavily on human judgment, whereas others rely more on properly maintained and 

calibrated instruments and statistical analysis of data.

2.1. Consensus View – The STRP noted that the subcommittee’s standards sought to 

address human factors concerns. Approving of this effort, the STRP suggested,

without dissent, refinements in language relating to the need for objectivity in 
4

selecting reviewers and the insulation of reviewers from analysts to avoid 

potentially biasing communications.

2.2. The STRP recommends that the term “discrepancies” be defined in Section 4 

Terms and Definitions to avoid confusion.

3. Quality Assurance: Quality assurance covers a broad range of topics. For example, a 

method must include quality assurance procedures to ensure that sufficiently similar results 

will be obtained when the methodology is properly followed by different users in different 

facilities. 

3.1. Consensus View – The STRP finds the quality assurance measures of the

proposed draft standard are sufficient for promoting consistent application of the 

technical review process across forensic science service providers.

4. Scope and Purpose: Standards should have a short statement of their scope and purpose. 

They should list the topics that they address and the related topics that they do not address. 

Requirements, recommendations, or statements of what is permitted or prohibited do not 

belong in this section.

4.1. Consensus View – Transparency in both the reporting and technical review is 

paramount. The STRP believes the scope and purpose of this document meets 

the criteria for this requirement. This standard seeks to ensure the unbiased 

independence of the technical review and to make certain that reports generated 

by Bloodstain Pattern Analysts are based on validated methods and reliable 

qualitative measures. 

5. Terminology: Standards should define terms that have specialized meanings. Only rarely 

should they give a highly restricted or specialized meaning to a term in common use among 

the general public.

5.1. Consensus View – The STRP believes that all technical terms should be 

consistent with the OSAC Lexicon, especially “Administrative Review” and 

“Technical Review” which are listed as OSAC Preferred Terms. 

“Administrative Review” needs a few small wording changes to mirror the 

OSAC Preferred Term definition. Consideration should also be given to the 

National Commission on Forensic Science, Views of the Commission Defining 

Forensic Science and Related Terms Defining Forensic Science and Related 

Terms (justice.gov). 

5.2. In Section 4.2.1 “Agency” should be replaced with “Forensic Science Service 

Provider” (FSSP) for consistency with definition 4.2.2. 

5.3. Under Section 4.2.3 should be stated “as defined in the OSAC Lexicon.”

6. Method Description: There is no rule as to the level of detail needed in the description of 

the method. Some parts of the method may be performed in alternative ways without 

affecting the quality and consistency of the results. Standards should focus on standardizing 

steps that must be performed consistently across organizations to ensure equivalent results. 
5

Alternatively, standards can define specific performance criteria that are required to be 

demonstrated and met rather than specifying the exact way a task must be done. For example, 

it may be enough to specify the lower limit for detecting a substance without specifying the 

equipment or method for achieving this limit of detection.

6.1. Consensus View – The STRP believes this document clearly describes a 

minimum framework and performance criteria for the technical review of 

bloodstain pattern analysis reports. The STRP found the method description in 

general to be clearly defined, although there were proposed modifications that 

were accepted by the BPA Subcommittee.

6.2. In section 5.2 delete “any issues which affect”. Replace “considered” with 

“essential”. 

6.3. Under section 6, prior to the last sentence which begins with “Deviations”,

insert the following sentence “Communications between the technical reviewer 

and the analyst should be limited to promote the independence of the review.” 

In the last sentence as described above, delete “and explained” at the end of the 

sentence. The standard already requires deviations to be documented, and as part 

of the documentation process, the reasoning be recorded.

7. Reporting Results: Methods must be well described, scientifically sound, and 

comprehensive. They must also lead to reported results that are within the scope of the 

standard, appropriately caveated, and not overreaching.

7.1 Consensus View – The STRP believes the statements for the Standards for the 

Technical Review of Bloodstain Pattern Analysis Reporting are consistent with 

the scope and purpose of the draft standard. The STRP noted under section 8

(Conflict Resolution), the last sentence states the consultation shall be 

documented, but it neglects to state where. The consensus of the STRP was to 

add, “in the original case file.” to the end of this sentence.