Summary of Murdock et. al
Introduction
The nature of firearm and toolmark marks makes it difficult to create a statistical model that can accurately and reliably (from a statistical standpoint) predict the chances of a randomly aquired characteristic of being actually random. The models that have been suggested are flawed, although they do have some probative value. Though the same couold be said for other areas of forensic science.
Review of the Current Literature in Statistical Applications for Firearms and Toolmarks
Firearm and toolmark identification has been evolving since as early as 1932. There have been numerous studies designed to develop and test the statistical probabilities of finding a match (of either a gun or bullet) by random chance. Other studies were developed to address the need for empirical based studies. The progression of technology has led to examiners being able to scan and analyze firearm and toolmark RMPs in 3D. This allows for the potential creation of automated computer programs that can scan for RMPs, thus decreasing human error.
Current State of the Use of RMPs in Firearm and Toolmark Identification
Error rates (or “RMPs”) are difficult to establish in the field of firearm and toolmark examination, if they can be established at all. RMPs are apparently not reliable, and it will be difficult to develop a mathematical model that can be used universally. It will also be a challenge to create this model with the ability to accurately predict the random marks left by firearms and tools.
Absolute Versus Practical Identification and Subjectivity
It is imperative the wording of courtroom testimony be standardized. Instead of absolute statements (“This bullet came from the suspect’s gun), practical statements should imstead become the norm. Also, subjective examinations of firearms and toolmarks are a flaw in the examination process, even though, just as with practicallity, these obseravations are present in everyday life, and therefore have a place in our justice system.
Title & Abstract Discussion
From the title, I would have expexted this paper to be about a study that the author did in an attempt to develope and apply RMPs (random match probabilities) to the identification of firearms and toolmarks. However, this paper seemed to be more of a review article of other authors’ successes and failures (with a lot of shade thrown in). The abstract sounds more like an introduction rather than a breif summary of the paper.