Quantitative Identification Criteria for Secondary Toolmarks on Bullets Shot from AK-74
https://doi.org/10.30764/1819-2785-2019-14-3-54-62
Abstract
The paper compares the effectiveness of identifying low-count land marking patterns using the method of consecutively matching striations (CMS method) and the probabilistic method. The study was conducted on 48 pairs of matching toolmarks and 66 pairs of non-matching toolmarks. The criterion for assigning a positive match that was determined using the CMS method yielded one false positive in the analysis of known non-matches. Approximately 50% of matching pairs of toolmarks identified by the expert were omitted in the analysis. The application of the probabilistic method showed that out of the same 16 pairs of matches identified by the expert, no pair will be missed if the probability value of 5 х 10-3 is taken as the identification criterion. No false positive statement will be made either. Thus it is shown that the probabilistic method of toolmark identification is more effective. It was demonstrated to be practically impossible to justify elimination when comparing low-count toolmark patterns.
About the Author
V. A. Fedorenko
Saratov State University
Russian Federation
Fedorenko Vladimir Aleksandrovich – Candidate of Mathematics, Associate Professor, Head of the Training and Research Laboratory of Forensic Materials Science
Russian Federation
Fedorenko Vladimir Aleksandrovich – Candidate of Mathematics, Associate Professor, Head of the Training and Research Laboratory of Forensic Materials Science
References
1. Fedorenko V.A., Navrotskaya E.V. Criteria and algorithm of the evaluation of the uniqueness of the complexes of matching tracks in the traces on the shot bullets. Journal of Information Technologies and Computing Systems. 2019. No. 1. P. 110–120. (In Russ.). http://doi.org/10.14357/20718632190110
2. Heard B.J. Handbook of Firearms and Ballistics: Examining and Interpreting Forensic Evidence. 2nd ed. Wiley & Sons, 2008. 416 p. http://doi.org/10.1002/9780470694589
3. Biasotti A.A. Statistical Study of the Individual Characteristics of Fired Bullets. Journal Forensic Sciences. 1959. Vol. 4. No. 1. P. 34–50.
4. Zalewski E. Mathematics in Forensic Firearm Examination. N.Y.: Syracuse University, 2015. 64 p. https://surface.syr.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1838&context=honors_capstone
5. Aitken C., Taroni F. Statistics and the Evaluation of Evidence for Forensic Scientists. 2nd ed. N.Y.: John Wiley & Sons, 2004. 540 p. http://doi.org/10.1002/0470011238
6. Granovskii G.L. Probabilistic assessment of linear (dynamic) traces for identification. Methodological recommendations for experts. Moscow: VNIISE. 1985. 19 p. (In Russ.)
7. Fedorenko V.A., Sidak E.V., Myltsyna O.A. The Method of the Estimation of Uniqueness of Route Complexes in Secondary Traces. Izv. Saratov Univ. (N.S.), Ser.: Economics. Management. Law. 2018. Vol. 18. Issue 2. P. 217–221. (In Russ.). http://doi.org/10.18500/1994-2540-2018-18-2-217-221
8. Fedorenko V.A., Navrotskaya E.V. Criteria and algorithm of the evaluation of the uniqueness of the complexes of matching tracks in the traces on the shot bullets. Journal of Information Technologies and Computing Systems. 2019. No. 1. P. 110–120. (In Russ.). http://doi.org/10.14357/20718632190110
9.
Review
For citations:
Fedorenko V.A. Quantitative Identification Criteria for Secondary Toolmarks on Bullets Shot from AK-74. Theory and Practice of Forensic Science. 2019;14(3):54-62. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.30764/1819-2785-2019-14-3-54-62
Views:
789
Email this article 