Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “toolmark”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

6 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2016

Development of a mobile toolmark characterization/comparison system [Development of a mobile, automated toolmark characterization/comparison system]

Since the development of the striagraph, various attempts have been made to enhance forensic investigation through the use of measuring and imaging equipment. This study describes the development of a prototype system employing an easy-to-use software interface designed to provide forensic examiners with the ability to measure topography of a toolmarked surface and then conduct various comparisons using a statistical algorithm. Acquisition of the data is carried out using a portable 3D optical profilometer, and comparison of the resulting data files is made using software named “MANTIS” (Mark and Tool Inspection Suite). The system has been tested on laboratory-produced markings that include fully striated marks (e.g., screwdriver markings), quasistriated markings produced by shear-cut pliers, impression marks left by chisels, rifling marks on bullets, and cut marks produced by knives. Using the system, an examiner has the potential to (i) visually compare two toolmarked surfaces in a manner similar to a comparison microscope and (ii) use the quantitative information embedded within the acquired data to obtain an objective statistical comparison of the data files. Finally, this study shows that, based on the results from laboratory samples, the system has great potential for aiding examiners in conducting comparisons of toolmarks.

47 OTHER INSTRUMENTATION↗
DOE OSTI2015

Objective analysis of impressed chisel toolmarks

Historical and recent challenges to the practice of comparative forensic examination have created a driving force for the formation of objective methods for toolmark identification. In this study, fifty sequentially manufactured chisels were used to create impression toolmarks in lead (500 toolmarks total). An algorithm previously used to statistically separate known matching and nonmatching striated screwdriver marks and quasi-striated plier marks was used to evaluate the chisel marks. Impression toolmarks, a more complex form of toolmark, pose a more difficult test for the algorithm that was originally designed for striated toolmarks. Lastly, results show in this instance that the algorithm can separate matching and nonmatching impression marks, providing further validation of the assumption that toolmarks are identifiably unique.

47 OTHER INSTRUMENTATION↗
DOE OSTI2013

Objective analysis of toolmarks in forensics

Since the 1993 court case of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. the subjective nature of toolmark comparison has been questioned by attorneys and law enforcement agencies alike. This has led to an increased drive to establish objective comparison techniques with known error rates, much like those that DNA analysis is able to provide. This push has created research in which the 3-D surface profile of two different marks are characterized and the marks’ cross-sections are run through a comparative statistical algorithm to acquire a value that is intended to indicate the likelihood of a match between the marks. The aforementioned algorithm has been developed and extensively tested through comparison of evenly striated marks made by screwdrivers. However, this algorithm has yet to be applied to quasi-striated marks such as those made by the shear edge of slip-joint pliers. The results of this algorithm’s application to the surface of copper wire will be presented. Objective mark comparison also extends to comparison of toolmarks made by firearms. In an effort to create objective comparisons, microstamping of firing pins and breech faces has been introduced. This process involves placing unique alphanumeric identifiers surrounded by a radial code on the surface of firing pins, which transfer to the cartridge’s primer upon firing. Three different guns equipped with microstamped firing pins were used to fire 3000 cartridges. These cartridges are evaluated based on the clarity of their alphanumeric transfers and the clarity of the radial code surrounding the alphanumerics.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2023

A study of examiner accuracy in cartridge case comparisons. Part 1: Examiner error rates

This report describes a study undertaken to estimate examiner (not laboratory) error rates for false Identifications and false Eliminations when comparing an unknown to a collection of three known cartridge cases. Volunteer active examiners with Association of Firearm and Toolmark Examiners (AFTE) membership or working in laboratories that participate in the Association of Crime Laboratory Directors (ASCLD) were provided with 15 sets of three known and one questioned cartridge cases fired from a collection of 25 new Ruger SR9 handguns. Remington 9-mm Luger (manufacturer designation L9MM3) ammunition was used and comparison sets were made up of cartridge cases fired within 100 cartridges of each other for each gun. Examiners were provided with a background survey, an answer sheet allowing for the AFTE Range of Conclusions, and return shipping materials. In addition to determining whether the known and questioned cartridge cases were fired with the same handgun, examiners were also asked to assess how many of the three knowns in each set were suitable for comparison, providing an estimated rate of how often each firearm used in the study produces useable, quality marks. The participating examiners were provided with both same-source and different-source comparison sets allowing the study to assess both error rates. Responses were received from 218 participating examiners. The overall rate of false Eliminations was estimated as 0.367% from comparisons known to be from the same firearm but reported as Eliminations. The overall rate of false Identifications was estimated as 1.01% from comparisons known to be from different firearms but reported as Identifications. The rates are not uniform across the sample population with a few examiners providing most of the false Identification responses. Rates of poor-quality mark production varied across the 25 sample handguns; those rates were 2.3% (±1.4%). Both false Elimination and false Identification rates are comparable to or lower than the rate of production of poor-quality marks by the firearms used in this study.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
DOE OSTI2023

A study of examiner accuracy in cartridge case comparisons. Part 2: Examiner use of the AFTE range of conclusions

Here, this report describes an analysis of how examiners used the Association of Firearm and Toolmark Examiners (AFTE) Range of Conclusions in a controlled study undertaken to estimate examiner error rates in comparing cartridge cases. Results of the error rate analysis are reported in [1]; this paper focuses on a broader analysis of how the entire collection of classification categories, especially those in the Inconclusive range, were used by the participating examiners. Volunteer active examiners with AFTE membership or working in laboratories that participate in Association of Crime Laboratory Directors (ASCLD) were provided with 15 sets of three known and one questioned cartridge cases fired from a collection of 25 new Ruger SR9 handguns. Remington 9-mm Luger (manufacturer designation L9MM3) ammunition was used and comparison sets were made up of cartridge cases fired within 100 cartridges of each other for each gun. Examiners were provided with a background survey, an answer sheet allowing for the AFTE Range of Conclusions, and return shipping materials. The participating examiners were provided with both same-source and different-source comparison sets allowing the study to assess both error rates. Responses were received from 218 participating examiners. The overall rate of false-negatives was estimated as 0.367 % from comparisons known to be from the same firearm but reported as eliminations. The overall rate of false-positives was estimated as 1.01 % from comparisons known to be from different firearms but reported as identifications. In the case of true different-source examinations, it is clear that the three Inconclusive categories and the Elimination category are not used consistently by all examiners. We identify five different apparent patterns of use of the AFTE Range of Conclusions scale, and discuss possible reasons for and implications of these differences.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗