The forensic sciences are under review more so than ever before. Such review is necessary and healthy and should be a continuous process. It identifies areas for improvement in quality practices and services. The issues surrounding error, i.e., measurement error, human error, contextual bias, and confirmatory bias, and interpretation are discussed. Infrastructure is already in place to support reliability. However, more definition and clarity of terms and interpretation would facilitate communication and understanding. Material improvement across the disciplines should be sought through national programs in education and training, focused on science, the scientific method, statistics, and ethics. To provide direction for advancing the forensic sciences a list of recommendations ranging from further documentation to new research and validation to education and to accreditation is provided for consideration. The list is a starting point for discussion that could foster further thought and input in developing an overarching strategic plan for enhancing the forensic sciences.

In the forensic science of firearms and toolmark identification, examiners traditionally have drawn conclusions of identity from subjective criteria. This paper critically explores the general validity of one proposed objective-criteria regime—that of counting consecutive matching striations on fired bullets. Practical considerations are discussed, as well as theoretical ones, with both discussions viewed from the perspective of Bayesian logic. It is concluded that drawbacks exist for this particular objective-criteria regime, but that research and logical analysis should continue.

No abstract

No abstract