Summary of Murdock et. al
Introduction
At the beginning of the paper, the writers criticized about how accurately evidence can be presented in the field of fire arms and tool mark evidences. Critics argue that this field does not have a strong statistical basis of tool mark identification. This argument is not a statement of fact and is not even a well-grounded argument due to lack of logic. The use of statistical models have in fact been implemented to firearms and tool mark identification but each model has its limits. The relevancy of these models to this field have yet to be determined. Other important aspects lack robust models such as the appointment of judges, the prediction of weather and the future of criminal behavior of a convict.
Review of the Current Literature in Statistical Applications for Firearms and Toolmarks
This section is about firearm and toolmark identification has evolved since early 1932. Numerous studies have been done to develop an test the statistical probabilities of finding a match by random. More studies were done to develop 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, in order to decreasing human error.
Current State of the Use of RMPs in Firearm and Toolmark Identification
This section is about how in firearm and toolmark identification the RMPs (usually error rates) are hard to determine. Another topic that was talked about how they do not know right now if whether it is although feasible to apply RMP to the identification of firearms and toolmarks. These play a part in why the RMPs are not reliable, they even discuss how difficult it is to develop a universal mathematic model that accurately predicts the random toolmarks left by some tools.
Absolute Versus Practical Identification and Subjectivity
This section is about how determination of whether certain evidence is going to be relevant for use or not. For example, the writers talk about the concept of uniqueness and the allowed use of “absolute doubt” but the forbidden use of “reasonable certainty.” The writers continue that subjective aspects in firearms and toolmark identification are seen as a flaw in examination. Subjective is used when examiners determine similarities is good enough for identification or not. It has also creeped up in the courtroom when making decisions. The writers then end the paper saying that subjectivity has a used in all actions and opinions of both the system of justice and in our everyday lives.
Title & Abstract Discussion
The title of the paper implied that it would be more of a study instead of a critical review of other papers. Instead the writers criticized past studies and current ones. The abstract was more of another introduction instead of a brief summary of the paper.