2004
DOI: 10.5840/jpsl20044510
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Challenge to the Admissibility of Firearms and Toolmark Identifications

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
18
0

Year Published

2006
2006
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(18 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
18
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The various marks are called 'toolmark' that is unique to itself [5]. In this regard, we are able to identify the suspect firearm by toolmark left on ballistics specimens.…”
Section: Firearm Identificationmentioning
confidence: 73%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The various marks are called 'toolmark' that is unique to itself [5]. In this regard, we are able to identify the suspect firearm by toolmark left on ballistics specimens.…”
Section: Firearm Identificationmentioning
confidence: 73%
“…Over thirty different features within theses marks can be referred as a 'fingerprint' for ballistics recognition [3]. Since each firearm owns its unique toolmarks [4,5], it is possible to identify both the type and model of a firearm and each individual weapon effectively as human fingerprint identification.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Surprisingly, since Daubert, most discussions turn around error rates in the methodologies! In our view, the question of admissibility of the evidence is not a scientific question, but purely a legal one [84][85][86][87][88][89][90] : the observations made and the inferences made according to circumstantial alternatives afford the court information that it would not have otherwise. * A forensic scientist should be able to describe how changes in circumstances will affect the value of what was observed but this will always remain probabilistic because time is not symmetrical (one cannot go back in time and reproduce the single event) and the reality of the event can only be inferred.…”
Section: Locard Exchange As a Scientific Principlementioning
confidence: 99%
“…The US Supreme Court's Daubert standard has listed several criteria for qualifying expert testimony, namely, peer review, error rate, adequate testing, regular standards and techniques, and general acceptance [1]. The controversy over a US federal court ruling on fingerprint evidence [2] has reignited some old challenges to forensic science, leading to the questioning on the reliability of such disciplines as toolmarks and handwriting [3,4]. To cope with these challenges, the forensic community needs to improve its work by conducting basic research with the aim of demonstrating the scientific validity of forensic methods, taking on regular proficiency testing and reinforcing vocational training and continuing education.…”
Section: Scientific Evidencementioning
confidence: 99%