Search

This report describes a study undertaken to estimate examiner (not laboratory) error rates for false Identifications and false Eliminations when comparing an unknown to a collection of three known cartridge cases. Volunteer active examiners with Association of Firearm and Toolmark Examiners (AFTE) membership or working in laboratories that participate in the Association of Crime Laboratory Directors (ASCLD) were provided with 15 sets of three known and one questioned cartridge cases fired from a collection of 25 new Ruger SR9 handguns. Remington 9-mm Luger (manufacturer designation L9MM3) ammunition was used and comparison sets were made up of cartridge cases fired within 100 cartridges of each other for each gun. Examiners were provided with a background survey, an answer sheet allowing for the AFTE Range of Conclusions, and return shipping materials. In addition to determining whether the known and questioned cartridge cases were fired with the same handgun, examiners were also asked to assess how many of the three knowns in each set were suitable for comparison, providing an estimated rate of how often each firearm used in the study produces useable, quality marks. The participating examiners were provided with both same-source and different-source comparison sets allowing the study to assess both error rates. Responses were received from 218 participating examiners. The overall rate of false Eliminations was estimated as 0.367% from comparisons known to be from the same firearm but reported as Eliminations. The overall rate of false Identifications was estimated as 1.01% from comparisons known to be from different firearms but reported as Identifications. The rates are not uniform across the sample population with a few examiners providing most of the false Identification responses. Rates of poor-quality mark production varied across the 25 sample handguns; those rates were 2.3% ( ± 1.4%). Both false Elimination and false Identification rates are comparable to or lower than the rate of production of poor-quality marks by the firearms used in this study., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

This report describes an analysis of how examiners used the Association of Firearm and Toolmark Examiners (AFTE) Range of Conclusions in a controlled study undertaken to estimate examiner error rates in comparing cartridge cases. Results of the error rate analysis are reported in [1]; this paper focuses on a broader analysis of how the entire collection of classification categories, especially those in the Inconclusive range, were used by the participating examiners. Volunteer active examiners with AFTE membership or working in laboratories that participate in Association of Crime Laboratory Directors (ASCLD) were provided with 15 sets of three known and one questioned cartridge cases fired from a collection of 25 new Ruger SR9 handguns. Remington 9-mm Luger (manufacturer designation L9MM3) ammunition was used and comparison sets were made up of cartridge cases fired within 100 cartridges of each other for each gun. Examiners were provided with a background survey, an answer sheet allowing for the AFTE Range of Conclusions, and return shipping materials. The participating examiners were provided with both same-source and different-source comparison sets allowing the study to assess both error rates. Responses were received from 218 participating examiners. The overall rate of false-negatives was estimated as 0.367 % from comparisons known to be from the same firearm but reported as eliminations. The overall rate of false-positives was estimated as 1.01 % from comparisons known to be from different firearms but reported as identifications. In the case of true different-source examinations, it is clear that the three Inconclusive categories and the Elimination category are not used consistently by all examiners. We identify five different apparent patterns of use of the AFTE Range of Conclusions scale, and discuss possible reasons for and implications of these differences., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Injuries caused by gunshots can produce what bloodstain pattern analysts know as "backspatter." Observations about the presence or absence of backspatter on an individual may be used in court as evidence of guilt or innocence. The discharge of three firearms (.22 caliber revolver, .38 caliber revolver, and .308 caliber rifle) and the resulting impact of bullets on a blood source were recorded using high-speed digital video imaging. Blood droplets, firearm muzzle gases, and ballistic shock waves were visualized using standard reflected light and shadowgraphy imaging techniques. A significant interaction between air currents, muzzle gases, and particulate material emanating from the firearms upon discharge with backspattered blood was observed. Blood droplets, initially spattered back toward the firearm and the shooter, were observed to change direction under the influence of firearm-induced air currents and were blown forward toward and beyond their original source location. Implications for experts testifying in court and for bloodstain pattern instructors are discussed.

Limits of detection for a number of elements both in air and in argon inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectroscopy (ICPAES) have been determined using a high-resolution interferometric spectrometer (HiRIS) that consists of an acousto-optic tunable filter, a fiber-optic Fabry-Perot interferometer, and a photon-counting PMT detector. Detection limits using the HiRIS are comparable to those determined using a 1.5 m focal-length grating spectrometer, which has resolution similar to that of the HiRIS. Differences between the two spectrometer systems and the two plasma systems are discussed. The portability and versatility of the HiRIS make it a useful alternative for field or on-line measurements using ICPAES. The high-resolution capabilities allow the HiRIS to replace large grating spectrometers for resolution of isotopic and complex spectra.