Forensic Firearms Identification

Silver to bullets

Poster printed by Sir Joseph Causton & Sons, Ltd, London, 1915. Source: Library of Congress.

Forensic firearm examiners determine whether a certain weapon fired a bullet or cartridge found at a crime scene. Early efforts linked spent ammunition with a class of weapon. Following the 1862 shooting of Confederate General Stonewall Jackson, for example, investigators concluded that the General had been accidentally shot by his own side. The spherical projectile removed from the General had been fired from a smooth-bore musket, a type of weapon that the Union Army no longer used.

In 1912, Professor Victor Balthazard at the University of Paris formulated the basic principles of firearms examination. Using enlarged photographs, he compared marks created by a firearm on the surface of bullets and cartridge cases found at a crime scene with marks on ammunition that he had fired from a suspect weapon. In this way, he could connect crime scene ammunition to a particular firearm.

During the 1920s in New York, four men rediscovered Balthazard’s principles and initiated modern firearms identification: Charles E. Waite, Calvin Goddard, Philip O. Gravelle, and John E. Fisher. Gravelle had extensive experience with a comparison microscope to study fine details in cloth patterns. He suggested that they might be able to use the instrument to compare fired bullets and cases.

In a signal event of firearms identification, the group bought two comparison microscopes and modified them. They added a comparison bridge, and rotatable mounts for bullets and cartridge cases. Through the eyepiece of the bridge, two pieces of spent ammunition could be examined, one on each stage of the two microscopes.

Police departments and the courts became aware of the value of “fingerprinting” bullets, especially after Goddard testified about his findings in the 1929 St. Valentine’s Day Massacre. Within a decade, firearms identification became an established technique of criminal investigation.

Unraveling DNA Mixtures

DNA mixture

 

The New York Times’ Liz Robbins recently reported a development in forensic DNA analysis. Over the past several decades, improvements in synthesizing DNA from trace amounts greatly increased the sensitivity of DNA profiling. Yet increasing sensitivity does not provide a solution to cases in which evidence contains trace amounts of DNA from several people.

Theresa A. Caragine and Adele A. Mitchell of the New York City medical examiner office’s forensic biology lab may have a solution. Their Forensic Statistical Tool is an algorithm for a software program that enables analysis of a DNA mixture uncovered from a crime scene and determines the probability that the DNA brew includes a defendant’s DNA profile.

Before judges allow results of the technology in court, the technique must survive Frye hearings. A Frye hearing is a challenge to the general scientific acceptance of new technology. Several Frye hearings are scheduled in New York courts.