2007
Diana Paul
San Francisco, CA
Objectives: (1) To suggest an approach to defending the science of firearm/toolmark identification that answers the most basic questions about the foundation of our field in a way that juries and attorneys can understand. (2) To show that “real” science supports firearm / toolmark identification, not just our own “biased” literature. Methodology: Review of firearm / toolmark identification literature, metallurgy textbooks and consultation with a metallurgist. Results: The scientific support for firearm / toolmark identification is overwhelming and is based on basic metallurgy. However, we have not addressed our underlying scientific presumptions in a convincing, straightforward way to people outside of our field. Conclusions: While preparing for a Daubert hearing and trial, I developed an approach to defending the science of firearm / toolmark identification that differed from others I have read or seen presented at AFTE seminars and in classes. The material and information is not new or novel, however, my approach to the material may assist others in their defense of the field.