Firearms Forensics

[gdr_11]

As a pragmatic person, I have been bothered for years by the theory that has evolved into forensic evidence regarding identifying firearms used in crimes. At this point in time the general public has been taught that every firearm leaves a unique, one in millions, imprint on a projectile that is fired from that weapon. When I consider a particular type of pistol, say a 1911 in .45 ACP or a Beretta 92 in 9mm, I can't help but think about how many millions of these guns are out there and how many have been manufactured using computer driven machining to create the barrels. My exposure to the computerized manufacturing of scientific components leads me to believe that, although there may some slight variance, when you produce millions of widgets using a data driven model many of these widgets will be, for all intents and purposes, identical. That, plus the fact that the bullets test fired for comparison must come from the same identical lot as the original recovered round, makes me question what the courts are really hearing when a forensics expert testifies. I wonder what kind of testimony a statistician would provide when asked to estimate the odds of one Beretta leaving trace marks on a bullet that were unique enough to make it one of a kind?

In any case, I stumbled across this article from a trial lawyer and found it compelling (probably because it lined up with my point of view). Thought I would share it with the elite intellectuals of CG.

http://www.thetruthaboutforensicscience.com/problems-modern-practice-forensic-firearm-toolmark-analysis/

[unusedusername]

That's a great article.

I served on a jury for a criminal trial, where the toolmarks examiner spent the better part of a day explaining that is isn't likely that the found 45 caliber slug was fired from the gun that the police recovered. The recovered gun was a .22. They had a power point slide deck showing a 45 cartridge next to a 22 cartridge and a photo showing someone trying to load a 45 cartridge into the chamber of that 22, showing that it won't fit.

The toolmarks examiner is often tasked with the question:

"It is likely that projectile A was fired from gun B, perhaps with provided casing C, where A, B, and C are all available and provided for examination"

It is a much harder question to ask:

"What gun fired projectile A, where we don't have the gun"

[xpublic]

I wonder if forensic is able to match bullet casing dna from a firearm that has an aftermarket firing pin and barrel vs the same firearm in factory configuration. (If it makes any sense.)

[Socratic]

gdr_11,

Excellent forensic analysis of forensic science.

I do agree that the assembly line method of production has evolved to precise replication of components. Computer aided manufacturing has removed human imprint...or error from the manufacturing process. I'd have difficulty believing that anyone could determine with absolute certainty that two firing pins made from the same metal stock display distinguishing marks.

My guess is that because subtle distinctions that once made precise identification possible have been eliminated by computer aided manufacturing, CA politicians want to replace such microscopic distinctions with microstamping. In essence, even politicians know that subtle distinctions that have once facilitated precise identification have disappeared.

Many years ago, before computers controlled machines that produced parts, one had to fork over big $$$ for a rifle capable of sub-MOA accuracy. Now a reasonably inexpensive rifle can compete with very expensive rifles in terms of accuracy. We owe that to precision of computer aided manufacturing.

Some years ago I read an article authored by a chemist the thesis of which was that it was most probably impossible for any FBI chemist to conclude with absolute certainty necessary to prove guilt that metallic alloy of a bullet found at a crime scene matched perfectly with metallic alloy of bullets from a unique box of ammunition. It cannot not be done to the exclusion of all other boxes of ammunition.

Forensic science is only as reliable as scientists, using acceptable protocols, in analyzing evidence and opining upon its validity.

We're asking forensic scientists to determine validity of evidence that connects a suspect to a crime. Before computers became dominant in scientific analyses, scientific protocols followed precisely could exclude the innocent and be used as basis of inference of a defendant's guilt. I'm not so sure that forensic science is necessarily precise to prove guilt. It might be more precise in excluding persons of interests.

If the tenet of allowing a thousand guilty people to be set free is preferred to imprisoning a single innocent person, we must perfect processes by which guilt is determined. It does more harm to erroneous convict an innocent person because the actual suspect remains free to commit more crimes.

I still believe that the best proof of guilt is a freely (not coerced) given confession that acknowledges all elements of a crime in question and ties himself to it. The obstacle is that habitual criminals know to keep their mouths shut. People who know the accused and saw him commit the crime are excellent sources of direct (testimony) evidence. An eyewitness who had never before seen the suspect but witnessed the crime provides very suspect evidence. We all know that eyewitnesses who do not know criminals who've alleged to commit crimes are inherently unreliable.

That leaves forensic science as remaining to prove guilt. More often than not, criminalists get it right. However, criminalists are not omniscient. They can get it wrong. If they are wrong and if their analysis of evidence is primary in establishing guilt, an innocent person could easily wind up in jail. That does irreparable harm, and never any good.

I am even suspect of DNA evidence. Unless it's collected in a manner consistent with scientific protocols and chain of custody preserved, and DNA evidence preserved in a scientifically approved manner, there is potential for false positives. DNA is not the smoking gun we've been lead to believe. I'd rather have a good fingerprint.

The bottom line is that if we're going to preserve integrity of our criminal justice system, we have to be prepared to admit false positives are possible, that forensic science is not always precise, and admit junk science when it's indicated.

I want the right suspect in jail. I do not want the wrong suspect in jail while the right suspect remains free to victimize others.

I've believed since the day I took the oath to abide by the Peace Officers Code of Ethics and I still believe more than 3 decades later that the best cop work is done wearing out shoe leather. That is not to say that I do not trust forensic science. I do. But only when it produces conclusions based upon sound scientific protocols. Otherwise, we might as well drop dimes to Miss Cleo for proof of guilt.

[Jimi Jah]

Is it any better than fingerprint identification? That is not a science but an art form. Computers don't match, they just reject false positives. Examiners do the final determination based on their experience and an "educated guess". It's not that scientific it it relies on an examiner's opinion.

[AFTII]

gdr_11,

Excellent forensic analysis of forensic science.

I do agree that the assembly line method of production has evolved to precise replication of components. Computer aided manufacturing has removed human imprint...or error from the manufacturing process. I'd have difficulty believing that anyone could determine with absolute certainty that two firing pins made from the same metal stock display distinguishing marks.

It may or may not. The number of rounds through the pistol, how it was maintained, etc. may render two "identical" firing pins distinguishable from another. Broad generalizations help no one. That's why our adversary system deals with the admission of evidence on a case by case basis.

My guess is that because subtle distinctions that once made precise identification possible have been eliminated by computer aided manufacturing, CA politicians want to replace such microscopic distinctions with microstamping. In essence, even politicians know that subtle distinctions that have once facilitated precise identification have disappeared.

You assume too much. Politicians don't care about the truth. They don't care about convicting crime or punishing criminals. If they did, they would soften gun laws, as statistics prove that more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens leads to less crime. Instead, our politicians have released convicted criminals by falsely claiming that they were engaged in victimless crime.

Many years ago, before computers controlled machines that produced parts, one had to fork over big $$$ for a rifle capable of sub-MOA accuracy. Now a reasonably inexpensive rifle can compete with very expensive rifles in terms of accuracy. We owe that to precision of computer aided manufacturing.

No, an off the shelf rifle cannot compete with a custom rifle which barrel sometimes costs more than the off the shelf rifle. That's fallacy. I've seen people try to compete in benchrest matches with bone stock, so called 1/4" rifles, and they end up disappointed.

Some years ago I read an article authored by a chemist the thesis of which was that it was most probably impossible for any FBI chemist to conclude with absolute certainty necessary to prove guilt that metallic alloy of a bullet found at a crime scene matched perfectly with metallic alloy of bullets from a unique box of ammunition. It cannot not be done to the exclusion of all other boxes of ammunition.

Opinions are like a-holes. Everyone has one. Scientists, especially, Ph.Ds love to talk down to people. They are mostly FoS. Of course, the composition of the guilding metal alone may not be dispositive, but when you add in other factors, like the rifling marks on the bullet, perhaps the composition of the burned powder residue on the bullet, etc. You can build a statistical probability that a juror could conclude establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Forensic science is only as reliable as scientists, using acceptable protocols, in analyzing evidence and opining upon its validity.

That's what you pay for. An opinion.

We're asking forensic scientists to determine validity of evidence that connects a suspect to a crime. Before computers became dominant in scientific analyses, scientific protocols followed precisely could exclude the innocent and be used as basis of inference of a defendant's guilt. I'm not so sure that forensic science is necessarily precise to prove guilt. It might be more precise in excluding persons of interests.

Why would you have that concern? They found OJ's DNA all over the crime scene. Chris Darden was conned into having OJ try on the bloody glove, and viola OJ was free to commit more crimes. My point is that in a criminal trial, its not necessarily the weight of the evidence, but the quality of the defense lawyer that drives the outcome - as disheartening that realization may be.

If the tenet of allowing a thousand guilty people to be set free is preferred to imprisoning a single innocent person[/B], we must perfect processes by which guilt is determined. It does more harm to erroneous convict an innocent person because the actual suspect remains free to commit more crimes.

I feel like I am back in law school. I've never agreed with either of your tenants. Setting 1000 guilty *****holes free to commit more crimes is far more damaging to society that one false conviction. You're own argument is internally flawed, as it has been since this topic was first debated. Besides that, your tenant is at odds with Mr. Spock's philosophy in the Wrath of Khan.

Should the system work toward 100% infallibility? Sure, but as flawed human beings are the heart of the system, it will never be attained. No amount of hoping will change that fact. People are flawed, a fact that most Californians are unwilling to admit, so any system they create will necessarily be flawed. Our system is based upon the premise that people will tell the truth under Oath. That is the biggest flaw in our current system - the American public. People lie with regularity and alacrity. Our system was never intended to deal with that.


I still believe that the best proof of guilt is a freely (not coerced) given confession that acknowledges all elements of a crime in question and ties himself to it. The obstacle is that habitual criminals know to keep their mouths shut. People who know the accused and saw him commit the crime are excellent sources of direct (testimony) evidence. An eyewitness who had never before seen the suspect but witnessed the crime provides very suspect evidence. We all know that eyewitnesses who do not know criminals who've alleged to commit crimes are inherently unreliable.

Sorry, false confessions happen all too often. People plead to stuff they didn't do because the weight of evidence against them will likely convict them of a more serious crime that they didn't do. Its simple economics. As for reliability of witnesses, isn't that for the lawyers and jury to hash out?

That leaves forensic science as remaining to prove guilt. More often than not, criminalists get it right. However, criminalists are not omniscient. They can get it wrong. If they are wrong and if their analysis of evidence is primary in establishing guilt, an innocent person could easily wind up in jail. That does irreparable harm, and never any good.

I doesn't seem like you understand the process. Prosecutors prove guilt. Defense attorneys obfuscate, deflect and obscure the truth, i.e., the Chewbacca defense. The jury is left to sort things out.

Furthermore, you imply the system is one sided. It's not. There is not just one criminalist whose word is accepted as if handed down by God himself. We have an adversary system in the US. The defendant gets his or her own expert if they want one - free of charge if he can't afford it. That's how the ACTUAL system works. It's not a one sided hypothetical railroad job as you want to make it sound. If you are a PO as you claim, you know this is true, so I can't understand the purpose of this post?

I am even suspect of DNA evidence. Unless it's collected in a manner consistent with scientific protocols and chain of custody preserved, and DNA evidence preserved in a scientifically approved manner, there is potential for false positives. DNA is not the smoking gun we've been lead to believe. I'd rather have a good fingerprint.

What you state is true of any evidence, not just DNA. If the prosecution cannot establish chain of custody, the evidence will be excluded. If DNA is degraded beyond scientific usefulness, it will be excluded. As for finger print evidence, it can be useless if the question is not if the Defendant was present at the scene, but when was the Defendant present at the scene. Fingerprints are generally useless to establish a timeline.

The bottom line is that if we're going to preserve integrity of our criminal justice system, we have to be prepared to admit false positives are possible, that forensic science is not always precise, and admit junk science when it's indicated.

No. You deal with every case through the adversarial system. An average juror is not smart enough to get out of jury duty. Why should he or she be expected to understand what is or is not the correct scientific conclusion? They are not.

Remember, the burden is on the prosecution. The prosecutor has the burden of teaching the jury the scientific basis for the evidence. Does this go unchallenged? Of course not. The defense can call its own experts to refute the prosecution's expert's conclusions. The jury is free to decide who is more credible - hence the reason I've never been allowed to sit on a jury. The system is not flawless, but it works, and has worked for HUNDREDS of YEARS.

As for the admission of junk science, I don't understand your point. Junk science is that which is not generally accepted within the scientific community. Junk science is never admissible under Kelly-Frye.

I want the right suspect in jail. I do not want the wrong suspect in jail while the right suspect remains free to victimize others.

What if the wrong subject, i.e., the one who has been wrongly convicted of drug trafficking, murdered a five year old during a drive by shooting, but has never been caught for that crime. Whereas the "right suspect," who will not be punished for drug trafficking, is basically an honest person who was down on his luck and dealt a few grams of coke to feed himself, but will never, ever, commit another crime? Would your concerns change?

I've believed since the day I took the oath to abide by the Peace Officers Code of Ethics and I still believe more than 3 decades later that the best cop work is done wearing out shoe leather. That is not to say that I do not trust forensic science. I do. But only when it produces conclusions based upon sound scientific protocols. Otherwise, we might as well drop dimes to Miss Cleo for proof of guilt.

I took an oath to uphold the Constitution, laws of the state of California and the United States. I do my best. That's all I can do.

As a PO all you can do is what you can do. It's a tough job. Not trying to be a dick, but maybe its time to retire and let someone else deal with all the nonsense? You could always retire and become a defense lawyer.

Please see my comments in bold above.

[Socratic]

AFTII,

My man, I know how it works.

Believe me, a lot of what I once believed to be true was not.

I have factory rifles that will shoot more accurately than custom hunting rifles. I have three that will shoot .25" inches with hand loaded hunting rounds, not tricked out target rounds. Price is a not a good predictor of rifle performance.

"What ifs" are problematic. What should be our guide but no longer is, our constitution, has been usurped by political agenda. We are no longer self-governed. We are ruled. The primary method our ruling elite uses to control us is law, law that does not apply to our ruling elite. If you were to read this treatise and thoroughly comprehend it, you'll know that we are ruled and not governed: https://spectator.org/39326_americas...ls-revolution/

If you believe this: "I feel like I am back in law school. I've never agreed with either of your tenants. Setting 1000 guilty *****holes free to commit more crimes is far more damaging to society that one false conviction. You're own argument is internally flawed, as it has been since this topic was first debated. Besides that, your tenant is at odds with Mr. Spock's philosophy in the Wrath of Khan." then you believe that our Founding Fathers were wrong, that sometimes it's acceptable to imprison innocent people. It is wholly antithetical to the a core tenet upon which this country was founded. I'm a strict constructionist. I do not believe in a living constitution. A living constitution is nothing more than a set of guidelines for ruling the unwashed masses that are fickle to one wielding power. Cops will work just has diligently to exclude potential suspects as they will identifying the real suspect. That is how it was intended to work.

Your opinion is that my argument in flawed. My opinion is you're a danger to American jurisprudence, freedom, and liberty.

If you understand how the grant process works, you'll know how federal bureaucrats have obliterated the 10th Amendment.

I've taken forensic science as an undergrad. It wasn't precise then. It's not precise now. It was not my only hard science course. I'll abstain engaging you in arguments of scientific validity because I know that you'll rely upon the inane to prove an illusory point.

Why would you suppose deputy district attorneys have told me to bring them anything, but bring them a confession and they'll file?

Becoming a lifelong learner must be a component of doing your best. For instance, Freud was at one time thought to be legitimate science. Now it's junk science. What you accept as scientific today might be proved invalid. If you use reason and logic and apply your prior knowledge, assuming your prior knowledge is correct, you'll be in a better position to determine what is and isn't factual.

If your follow the tenets of scientific methodology, you'll be in far better position to opine upon scientific validity.

I had a conversation was a relative about the nonexistent "gay" gene. He's a physician with a genius IQ. I had bought in to media propaganda of the existence of a "gay" gene. He is good about getting to pith. He told me that the "gay" gene theory was silly and completely devoid of science. I did the research. He was right.

I'm not sure what your motive was in responding to my post. I kind of think that you were trying to convey a position of intellectual superiority, which is common among third tier and lower law school graduates. I know many, many lawyers. One commonality is their dislike of lawyers. I'm related to one whom you probably know. He does high end criminal defense work, including death penalty cases. You've probably seen him on TV. You've probably never seen him in a courtroom unless you're a trial attorney. He's told of a another lawyer who calls himself a gun rights "expert. He said he's a moron. He has no clue of how criminal trials work. Many lawyers know theory of criminal procedure but lack knowledge of actual trial experience. Were I to need a criminal defense attorney, I'd look for a trial attorney who's a CA Certified Criminal Law Specialist. I'd almost assuredly never go with one who was assigned to me by a gun rights insurance company.

I've been to many functions with lawyers are judges. One was the elected district attorney of a So Cal county. It's interesting to listen to their conversations about lawyers that are too stupid to be in courtrooms and lawyers that they respect due to trial professionalism.

One of my friends who has graduated from a law school that's at the top of top tier law schools has told me that justice is not always the objective of legal opinions. He has told me that he'd never practice criminal law or family law. In fact, he has told me that he wishes he hadn't of gone into law. He knows what the practice of law is, and he doesn't like it.

The same relative offered to pay law school tuition if I wanted to attend. I told him that I'd rather be a plumber than a lawyer. Lawyers are their worst enemies. Since you've written about OJ, why would you suppose pettifoggers praised the "Dream Team" that was really a nightmare when a horrible travesty of justice was occurring right in front of them? Were they stupid? Or were they covering for incompetence in action? The only lawyer with dedication to ethics and professionalism was Vincent Bugliosi, who was considered to be the best lawyer in America. He called the OJ trial a fraud and all lawyers involved, Ito, too, incompetent.

I'll leave you with two questions: tell me what you know about Marbury V. Madison and Dred Scott.

Remember: if you need a criminal lawyer, always go with a CA Certified Criminal Law Specialist who has tried many, many cases. A "gun rights lawyer" is meaningless.

[Socratic]

Why are lawyers overrepresented as psychopaths?

https://lawyerist.com/84087/youll-never-believe-how-many-lawyers-are-psychopaths/

Lawyers have innate ability to lie consistent with psychopaths. They are adept at euphemistically calling their lies as defending their clients. The rest of us know their lies as lies.

There's a valid reason that Americans rate lawyers in the same category as used car salesmen.

[AFTII]

Why are lawyers overrepresented as psychopaths?

https://lawyerist.com/84087/youll-never-believe-how-many-lawyers-are-psychopaths/

Lawyers have innate ability to lie consistent with psychopaths. They are adept at euphemistically calling their lies as defending their clients. The rest of us know their lies as lies.

There's a valid reason that Americans rate lawyers in the same category as used car salesmen.

I know why. It's the same reason that as many as 40% of all police officers are sociopaths. https://www.quora.com/What-percentag...al-psychopaths

I respect good cops; just as I respect good lawyers. Unlike you, I would never extrapolate and make a ridiculously overboard, untrue, statements like "police officers have the innate ability to lie consistent with sociopaths." Maybe forty percent lie and/or beat their wives, maybe some other percentage engage in sociopathic behaviors, but I would never overgeneralize to libel an entire profession by calling them all liars as you have done.

As for liars, I can't stand them. Our judicial system is based upon an honor system. A system that is predicated upon telling the truth. That's why perjury is a felony. Lying corrupts that system.

Personally, I believe lying is a sign of a low IQ. If you put your time in, you can usually find a case that mirrors your fact pattern and reaches the conclusion you seek. If not, you have to persuade the judge that precedent should not be applied in this case because of X, Y and Y. But that takes actual work, and most sociopaths seek instant gratification, so they lie.

[Che762x39]

... estimate the odds of one Beretta leaving trace marks on a bullet that were unique enough to make it one of a kind?

In any case, I stumbled across this article from a trial lawyer and found it compelling (probably because it lined up with my point of view).

Is that cup of coffee, half full or half empty? Keeping that in mine, you know you can find an expert witness who will agree with you even if you are really wrong. That is the system and it is what it is.

[robert101]

I do not wholly agree that our legal system is based on the truth. It many times draws us to believe it is based on who tells the best story to discredit the other side. That in of itself does not find the truth. All of this is really off topic. I too find a lot of snake oil in the paid forensic professional opinions of many. Paid for an opinion is very much part of the "game".

[Socratic]

AFTII,

Tell me what you think you know about Marbury and Dred Scott.

[Socratic]

AFTII,

I'll guess that you have no clue of either Marbury or Dred Scott other than what you wee taught at your law school, which is the breadth of knowledge of most people. Most people believe that Marbury created the concept of judicial review, and Dred Scott lacked standing to sue. It was all BS. Those were lies taught to Americans. Even many lawyers believe them. However, there are legal treatises that you can access on Google Scholar the theses of them are Marbury created nothing and Dred Scott was political, not justice; hence, the US Supreme Court is political, not an arbiter of justice.

Our Founding Fathers created three branches of government, not three equal branchs of government. That was a con job sold to gullible Americans by revisionists. The judicial branch was to be the weakest of the three branches.

Chief Justice Marshall was Adams's Secretary of State. On Adams's last day in office, Marshall signed Marbury's commission. After Jefferson took office, Marshall assumed his new role as Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court.

Marshall set up Marbury because he wanted to elevate the US Supreme Court, with he as chief justice, to the legislative and executive branches. He was a con artist all day long. He certainly wasn't motivated by ethical conduct. If he were, he'd of recused himself because he was a party to Marbury.

Jefferson rescinded Marbury's commission. Jefferson was in opposition to Federalists seizing control of our government. Marshall agreed to hear Marbury's case with his ulterior motive as creating illusory power equal to the executive branch. Jefferson got word of Marshall's treachery and told him that if he screwed with him he'd send the US Army to the United States Supreme Court and yank him right out of it at bayonet point. Marshall realized that his attempt to exert illusory authority was detrimental to good discretion and quickly reversed course. He said that he couldn't hear the case because the court lacked jurisdiction. That was a lie of an unethical despot illegitimately using power of the court. Jurisdiction is determined before any court will accept a petition.

Marshall learned a lesson that would control his behavior for 8 years of Jefferson's Administration: he had better not screw with his cousin lest he wind up in a military prison. You see, AFTII, Thomas Jefferson and James Marshall were cousins.

Dred Scott had nothing to do with justice. It was political agenda. Taney, from a slave holding family that were tobacco farmers, might have been a slave holder himself. His true agenda was to destroy the Missouri Compromise and give legitimacy to the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which supported popular sovereignty of slavery. Taney wanted to stack slave owning states in order to control electoral votes thereby denying Lincoln's platform and his chance of becoming president.

These cases and many others (I could go on-and-on about illegitimate acts of the US Supreme Court.) are reasons Americans have little faith in our justice system, which isn't about justice. It's about using the illusion of justice to enact political agenda. In essence, the US Supreme Court has morphed into our oligarchy with its latent agenda of controlling us under the false auspices of justice. It's smoke & mirrors of accomplished con artists.

AFTII, would you agree that the US Supreme Court has become our oligarchy that's controlled by our plutocracy? We, the People haven't been sovereign in well over a century. We're ruled. We're not governed.

In order to restore We, the People as sovereign as was intended by our Founding Fathers, we're going to NEED congress to begin posthaste impeaching activist justices and judges. As it stands now, law isn't about justice. It's about political agenda and controlling us, the unwashed masses. And you're a pawn in a game that you will lose. You've merely yet to figure out how insignificant you are.

AFTII, I've provided you with a link to a treatise that has identified who our ruling elite are. They rule us. We are not governed. And that is what is taught in law schools. You're taught to acquiesce to our ruling elite edicts and call it justice.

Our ruling elite is scared poopless that Donald J. Trump has become the 45th President of the United States of America. That wasn't supposed to happen. The Blue Collar billionaire isn't controlled by the ruling elite. They're apoplectic because President Trump can expose the ruling elite and the trillions they have stolen from American taxpayers.

"To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize."
---Voltaire

“I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.”
---President Woodrow Wilson (He was referring to the Federal Reserve.)

Source: http://www.themoneymasters.com/the-m...ns-on-banking/

P.S. Next time you get the notion of belittling anyone and impressing anyone with your legal "knowledge" and third tier or lower law school education, it might be wise were you to pick a dumbed down audience who'd be impressed with your credentials.

[pacrat]

All "forensic" sciences are suspect. All have been "proven" fallible. All depend on humans to interpret. Even DNA. All are easily 'beatable". Especially ballistic evidence.

example...all from memory of old fart........the first usage of an individuals fingerprints being used to solve a crime was in Argentina in the 1890s. A German doctor had first introduced the theory that all persons have different fingerprints in the 1850s.

From the 1890s until the mid 2000s it was considered a "scientific fact" that all humans have fingerprints differing from all other humans.

At the trial of Brandon Mayfield, an attorney from Oregan, for the terrorist bombing of trains in Spain in 2004. It was proven that there are people in the world that share all the characteristics of fingerprints. Every major LE agency in the world, including the FBI and Interpol swore his fingerprints were on an unexploded bomb found in a van in Madrid.

They were proven wrong. His fingerprints matched "exactly" the fingerprints of an Arab terrorist from a middle eastern country.

[erik_26]

Someone from the tin foil hat crowd may suggest that the 'test' fired round that the factory shoots before sending your gun to the gun store, is not a 'test', but rather a secret rule requiring all arms manufactures to fire, recover and store in a secret government database, said 'test' round.