This black box study assessed the performance of forensic firearms examiners in the United States. It involved three different types of firearms and 173 volunteers who performed a total of 8640 comparisons of both bullets and cartridge cases. The overall false-positive error rate was estimated as 0.656% and 0.933% for bullets and cartridge cases, respectively, while the rate of false negatives was estimated as 2.87% and 1.87% for bullets and cartridge cases, respectively. The majority of errors were made by a limited number of examiners. Because chi-square tests of independence strongly suggest that error probabilities are not the same for each examiner, these are maximum-likelihood estimates based on the beta-binomial probability model and do not depend on an assumption of equal examiner-specific error rates. Corresponding 95% confidence intervals are (0.305%, 1.42%) and (0.548%, 1.57%) for false positives for bullets and cartridge cases, respectively, and (1.89%, 4.26%) and (1.16%, 2.99%) for false negatives for bullets and cartridge cases, respectively. The results of this study are consistent with prior studies, despite its comprehensive design and challenging specimens.

Forensic handwriting examination involves the comparison of writing samples by forensic document examiners (FDEs) to determine whether or not they were written by the same person. Here we report the results of a large-scale study conducted to assess the accuracy and reliability of handwriting comparison conclusions. Eighty-six practicing FDEs each conducted up to 100 handwriting comparisons, resulting in 7,196 conclusions on 180 distinct comparison sets, using a five-level conclusion scale. Erroneous “written by” conclusions (false positives) were reached in 3.1% of the nonmated comparisons, while 1.1% of the mated comparisons yielded erroneous “not written by” conclusions (false negatives). False positive rates were markedly higher for nonmated samples written by twins (8.7%) compared to nontwins (2.5%). Notable associations between training and performance were observed: FDEs with less than 2 y of formal training generally had higher error rates, but they also had higher true positive and true negative rates because they tended to provide more definitive conclusions; FDEs with at least 2 y of formal training were less likely to make definitive conclusions, but those definitive conclusions they made were more likely to be correct (higher positive predictive and negative predictive values). We did not observe any association between writing style (cursive vs. printing) and rates of errors or incorrect conclusions. This report also provides details on the repeatability and reproducibility of conclusions, and reports how conclusions are affected by the quantity of writing and the similarity of content.

In a comprehensive study to assess various aspects of the performance of qualified forensic firearms examiners, volunteer examiners compared both bullets and cartridge cases fired from three different types of firearms. They rendered opinions on each comparison according to the Association of Firearm & Tool Mark Examiners (AFTE) Range of Conclusions, as Identification, Inconclusive (A, B, or C), Elimination, or Unsuitable. In this part of the study, comparison sets used previously to characterize the overall accuracy of examiners were blindly resubmitted to examiners to assess the repeatability (105 examiners; 5700 comparisons of bullets and cartridge cases) and reproducibility (191 examiners of bullets, 193 of cartridge cases; 5790 comparisons) of firearms examinations. Data gathered using the prevailing AFTE Range were also recategorized into two hypothetical scoring systems. Consistently positive differences between observed agreement and expected agreement indicate that the repeatability and reproducibility of examiners exceed chance agreement. When averaged over bullets and cartridge cases, the repeatability of comparison decisions (involving all five levels of the AFTE Range) was 78.3% for known matches and 64.5% for known nonmatches. Similarly averaged reproducibility was 67.3%% for known matches and 36.5% for known nonmatches. For both repeatability and reproducibility, many of the observed disagreements were between a definitive and inconclusive category. Examiner decisions are reliable and trustworthy in the sense that identifications are unlikely when examiners are comparing non‐matching items, and eliminations are unlikely when they are comparing matching items.

No abstract

While earlier studies have attempted to resolve the challenges encountered when interpreting gamma-hydroxybutyric acid (GHB) concentrations in hair (primarily due to its endogenous presence), few have had large sample sizes. The first objective of this study was to evaluate the inter-individual variation of endogenous GHB concentrations. The second objective, to be detailed in another report, was to assess intra-individual variation and the impact on exogenous GHB discrimination. Over 2000 hair segments from 141 women and 73 men (all processed hair 3–12 cm long) were analyzed in this study. The raw calculated range of endogenous GHB concentrations was < 0.40–5.47 ng/mg with 97.5% of the segmental results calculated less than 2.00 ng/mg. Imputation, assuming a lognormal distribution, was applied to the data to include non-detect data (<LOQ), which led to an estimated endogenous GHB range of 0.16–5.47 ng/mg. Kruskal-Wallis tests were employed on a segmental basis for group comparisons. This test was applied to the male and female segmental medians and subsequently indicated that these groups were different at the α = 0.05 level of significance. Additionally, female hair samples appeared to have a trend comprising higher endogenous GHB concentrations close to the scalp and a mean net decrease of ~ 0.2–0.3 ng/mg distally. Male hair samples displayed the opposite trend, with a mean net increase of ~ 0.5–0.6 ng/mg from the proximal to the distal end of the hair shaft. It was also concluded that differences exist between the median GHB concentrations of the “treated” and “untreated” hair in the female group at the α = 0.05 level of significance. Age groups and races were analyzed, but none of the observed differences in median concentration were significant at α = 0.05. This is the largest endogenous GHB hair population study to date and provides substantial new data on inter-individual variation and chronological trends of GHB concentrations in hair.