法医检验人员做出子弹对比决定的准确性和可重复性。

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, LEGAL Forensic science international Pub Date : 2024-11-04 DOI:10.1016/j.forsciint.2024.112287
R. Austin Hicklin , Connie L. Parks , Kensley M. Dunagan , Brandi L. Emerick , Nicole Richetelli , William J. Chapman , Melissa Taylor , Robert M. Thompson
{"title":"法医检验人员做出子弹对比决定的准确性和可重复性。","authors":"R. Austin Hicklin ,&nbsp;Connie L. Parks ,&nbsp;Kensley M. Dunagan ,&nbsp;Brandi L. Emerick ,&nbsp;Nicole Richetelli ,&nbsp;William J. Chapman ,&nbsp;Melissa Taylor ,&nbsp;Robert M. Thompson","doi":"10.1016/j.forsciint.2024.112287","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Few previous studies have assessed the accuracy and reproducibility of bullet comparison decisions by firearms examiners, and none have evaluated accuracy of examiners’ decisions when comparing damaged bullets, comparisons of questioned bullets, or the effects on decision rates of using jacketed hollow-point vs. full metal jacket bullets. In this study, 49 practicing forensic firearms examiners conducted 3156 comparisons of bullets, including bullets ranging in quality, bullets from different types of ammunition, and bullets fired from various makes/models of firearms. The study evaluated two scenarios commonly used in casework: questioned-questioned (QQ) comparisons of two bullets from unknown sources, and known-questioned (KQ) comparisons in which a bullet from an unknown source is compared to three known exemplars from a single firearm. Key findings: after controlling for other factors, QQ vs. KQ comparisons had relatively limited effects on decision rates; rates of inconclusive responses were inversely related to bullet quality; bullets fired from polygonally-rifled pistols resulted in more inconclusive or unsuitable responses than conventional rifling; on nonmated comparison sets, the rate of (true) exclusions was particularly high when comparing different caliber bullets, and was higher on comparisons of different makes/models of firearms vs. the same model of firearm; comparisons in which different types of ammunition were fired from the same firearm had a high rate of erroneous exclusions; decision rates differed notably by firearm model; decision rates varied notably among the participants. Because the measured rates vary dramatically due to these various factors, we recommend against using overall decision rates to summarize the results of this study.</div></div><div><h3>Significance statement</h3><div>Comparisons of bullets by forensic firearms examiners are a critical part of the criminal justice system, seeking to determine whether recovered bullets from crime scenes can be attributed to specific firearms. This paper reports the results of a research study designed to assess the accuracy and reliability of forensic bullet comparison decisions, which is important to assess scientific validity for admissibility in court. Few studies have been conducted assessing the accuracy of forensic bullet comparison decisions, and no previous studies have evaluated the accuracy and reproducibility of decisions made by practicing forensic firearms examiners when comparing bullets of varying quality or bullets of different types, or when making comparisons of questioned bullets.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":12341,"journal":{"name":"Forensic science international","volume":"365 ","pages":"Article 112287"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Accuracy and reproducibility of bullet comparison decisions by forensic examiners\",\"authors\":\"R. Austin Hicklin ,&nbsp;Connie L. Parks ,&nbsp;Kensley M. Dunagan ,&nbsp;Brandi L. Emerick ,&nbsp;Nicole Richetelli ,&nbsp;William J. Chapman ,&nbsp;Melissa Taylor ,&nbsp;Robert M. Thompson\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.forsciint.2024.112287\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Few previous studies have assessed the accuracy and reproducibility of bullet comparison decisions by firearms examiners, and none have evaluated accuracy of examiners’ decisions when comparing damaged bullets, comparisons of questioned bullets, or the effects on decision rates of using jacketed hollow-point vs. full metal jacket bullets. In this study, 49 practicing forensic firearms examiners conducted 3156 comparisons of bullets, including bullets ranging in quality, bullets from different types of ammunition, and bullets fired from various makes/models of firearms. The study evaluated two scenarios commonly used in casework: questioned-questioned (QQ) comparisons of two bullets from unknown sources, and known-questioned (KQ) comparisons in which a bullet from an unknown source is compared to three known exemplars from a single firearm. Key findings: after controlling for other factors, QQ vs. KQ comparisons had relatively limited effects on decision rates; rates of inconclusive responses were inversely related to bullet quality; bullets fired from polygonally-rifled pistols resulted in more inconclusive or unsuitable responses than conventional rifling; on nonmated comparison sets, the rate of (true) exclusions was particularly high when comparing different caliber bullets, and was higher on comparisons of different makes/models of firearms vs. the same model of firearm; comparisons in which different types of ammunition were fired from the same firearm had a high rate of erroneous exclusions; decision rates differed notably by firearm model; decision rates varied notably among the participants. Because the measured rates vary dramatically due to these various factors, we recommend against using overall decision rates to summarize the results of this study.</div></div><div><h3>Significance statement</h3><div>Comparisons of bullets by forensic firearms examiners are a critical part of the criminal justice system, seeking to determine whether recovered bullets from crime scenes can be attributed to specific firearms. This paper reports the results of a research study designed to assess the accuracy and reliability of forensic bullet comparison decisions, which is important to assess scientific validity for admissibility in court. Few studies have been conducted assessing the accuracy of forensic bullet comparison decisions, and no previous studies have evaluated the accuracy and reproducibility of decisions made by practicing forensic firearms examiners when comparing bullets of varying quality or bullets of different types, or when making comparisons of questioned bullets.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12341,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Forensic science international\",\"volume\":\"365 \",\"pages\":\"Article 112287\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Forensic science international\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0379073824003694\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, LEGAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Forensic science international","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0379073824003694","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, LEGAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

之前很少有研究对枪支检验人员做出的子弹比对决定的准确性和可重复性进行评估,也没有研究对检验人员在比对受损子弹时做出决定的准确性、对有疑问的子弹进行比对或使用护套空尖弹与全金属护套弹对决定率的影响进行评估。在这项研究中,49 名执业法医枪支检验员对 3156 发子弹进行了比较,包括不同质量的子弹、不同类型弹药的子弹以及不同品牌/型号枪支发射的子弹。研究评估了案件工作中常用的两种情况:来源不明的两颗子弹的 "质疑-提问"(QQ)比较和 "已知-提问"(KQ)比较,其中 "质疑-提问 "比较是将来源不明的一颗子弹与来自同一枪支的三颗已知样弹进行比较。主要发现:在控制了其他因素后,QQ 与 KQ 对比对判定率的影响相对有限;不确定的回答率与子弹质量成反比;与传统膛线相比,多边形膛线手枪发射的子弹导致更多不确定或不合适的回答;在非配枪对比集上,比较不同口径子弹时的(真实)排除率特别高,比较不同品牌/型号枪支与相同型号枪支时的(真实)排除率更高;在配枪对比集上,比较不同品牌/型号枪支时的(真实)排除率特别高,比较不同品牌/型号枪支与相同型号枪支时的(真实)排除率更高。不同型号枪支与同一型号枪支的比较中,错误排除率较高;同一枪支发射不同类型弹药的比较中,错误排除率较高;不同型号枪支的判定率差异显著;不同参与者的判定率差异显著。由于上述各种因素导致测得的判定率差异巨大,我们建议不要使用总体判定率来概括本研究的结果。意义声明:法医枪支检验人员对子弹进行比较是刑事司法系统的重要组成部分,目的是确定从犯罪现场找到的子弹是否可归属于特定枪支。本文报告了一项研究的结果,该研究旨在评估法医子弹比对决定的准确性和可靠性,这对于评估法庭受理的科学有效性非常重要。很少有研究对法医子弹比对决定的准确性进行评估,以前也没有研究对执业法医枪支检验员在比对不同质量的子弹或不同类型的子弹时,或在比对可疑子弹时所作决定的准确性和可重复性进行评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Accuracy and reproducibility of bullet comparison decisions by forensic examiners
Few previous studies have assessed the accuracy and reproducibility of bullet comparison decisions by firearms examiners, and none have evaluated accuracy of examiners’ decisions when comparing damaged bullets, comparisons of questioned bullets, or the effects on decision rates of using jacketed hollow-point vs. full metal jacket bullets. In this study, 49 practicing forensic firearms examiners conducted 3156 comparisons of bullets, including bullets ranging in quality, bullets from different types of ammunition, and bullets fired from various makes/models of firearms. The study evaluated two scenarios commonly used in casework: questioned-questioned (QQ) comparisons of two bullets from unknown sources, and known-questioned (KQ) comparisons in which a bullet from an unknown source is compared to three known exemplars from a single firearm. Key findings: after controlling for other factors, QQ vs. KQ comparisons had relatively limited effects on decision rates; rates of inconclusive responses were inversely related to bullet quality; bullets fired from polygonally-rifled pistols resulted in more inconclusive or unsuitable responses than conventional rifling; on nonmated comparison sets, the rate of (true) exclusions was particularly high when comparing different caliber bullets, and was higher on comparisons of different makes/models of firearms vs. the same model of firearm; comparisons in which different types of ammunition were fired from the same firearm had a high rate of erroneous exclusions; decision rates differed notably by firearm model; decision rates varied notably among the participants. Because the measured rates vary dramatically due to these various factors, we recommend against using overall decision rates to summarize the results of this study.

Significance statement

Comparisons of bullets by forensic firearms examiners are a critical part of the criminal justice system, seeking to determine whether recovered bullets from crime scenes can be attributed to specific firearms. This paper reports the results of a research study designed to assess the accuracy and reliability of forensic bullet comparison decisions, which is important to assess scientific validity for admissibility in court. Few studies have been conducted assessing the accuracy of forensic bullet comparison decisions, and no previous studies have evaluated the accuracy and reproducibility of decisions made by practicing forensic firearms examiners when comparing bullets of varying quality or bullets of different types, or when making comparisons of questioned bullets.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Forensic science international
Forensic science international 医学-医学:法
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
9.10%
发文量
285
审稿时长
49 days
期刊介绍: Forensic Science International is the flagship journal in the prestigious Forensic Science International family, publishing the most innovative, cutting-edge, and influential contributions across the forensic sciences. Fields include: forensic pathology and histochemistry, chemistry, biochemistry and toxicology, biology, serology, odontology, psychiatry, anthropology, digital forensics, the physical sciences, firearms, and document examination, as well as investigations of value to public health in its broadest sense, and the important marginal area where science and medicine interact with the law. The journal publishes: Case Reports Commentaries Letters to the Editor Original Research Papers (Regular Papers) Rapid Communications Review Articles Technical Notes.
期刊最新文献
A retrospective review of the circumstances and characteristics of 72 adult autoerotic neck compression deaths in Australia, between 2000 and 2022. Indoor domestic canine scavenging: A literature review. Microchimerism: The mystery of multiple DNA and its implications in forensic sciences. Taking care of women living with female genital mutilation or cutting: Characteristics of the pool of users of two healthcare facilities in Turin, Northern Italy. Physical injury in men after sexual assault: An analysis of 137 cases.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1