On these points, De Kinder (2002b:14) concluded that the FTI arguments were an overreach. He countered that the passage quoted above “is the same type of expression as saying at the beginning of the 1990[s] that automated comparison of bullets and cartridge casings is impossible.” He preferred instead the revised statement that “the current scientific knowledge and state-of-the-art technology does not allow one to be more accurate than a microscope comparison by a firearms examiner.” De Kinder held that dropping the believed-“unmatchable” exhibits from analysis is “unacceptable,” particularly given that the study was oriented to studying the feasibility of an RBID. “All data points have to be taken into consideration” because “the goal of [an RBID] is not restricted to those cartridge cases that can be identified by a trained firearm examiner.”

Generally, De Kinder (2002b) indicated approval of the conduct and interpretation of the major performance tests in the California study. He suggested the need for further study in a variety of areas.

The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement