Summary of Murdock et. al
Introduction
In the introduction of this paper, the author(s) discuss the background of firearm and toolmark identification and provides criticisms surrounding the motion towards statistical methods for firearm and toolmark identification. From what I understood, the speaker was essentially saying that identifying toolmarks and firearms has been a certain way for a long time and people have testified with certainty using the current way of identification so working to change it and, in my opinion, make it better, is a waste of time and money.
Review of the Current Literature in Statistical Applications for Firearms and Toolmarks
As the title of implies, this section discusses the current publications related to firearms examination and identification. It is set up in a way that as you read the section, the technology available changes and improves between each publication and method for toolmark comparison. The technology mentioned includes a confocal microscope and an optical comparison microscope.
Current State of the Use of RMPs in Firearm and Toolmark Identification
This section provides some reasons as to why there isn’t a set way to compare toolmarks like there is with DNA comparisons. The surfaces of the subject with the toolmarks present are microscopically unique and unstable over time and may be due to a variety of processes, not necessarily the gun barrel, leading to more difficulty in finding an appropriate system of comparison.
Absolute Versus Practical Identification and Subjectivity
This final section contrasts absolute certainty and practical certainty and the roles they have in the justice system and firearm and toolmark identification. It states that practical certainty should not be seen as an enemy of justice, as it, as well as subjectivity, is essentially naturally occurring and cannot be avoided.
Title & Abstract Discussion
I think the title “The Development and Application of Random Match Probabilities to Firearm and Toolmark Identification” is mostly representative of what the paper discusses, but does not include that this paper also includes a lot of criticisms for the work people have done to improve firearm and toolmark identification and essentially says it’s pointless because it’s impossible, which is essentially what the whole last section is dedicated to. Next, the abstract. If I just read the abstract and not look at the paper at all, I would think the paper would go on and look at the criticisms about firearms and toolmark identification and discuss how those are incomplete and lack support. Instead, the paper sounds more like a criticism towards firearms and toolmark identification that lacks support and consistently compares matching toolmarks to matching DNA (essentially half of the last section), which are on two totally different spectrums of forensic science. To summarize, the title is partially okay in quality relative to the paper, but the abstract is on a whole other level.