ABSTRACT
It has been observed in the earlier chapters of this book that the bulk of the forensic sciences are, at their core, observational disciplines supported by modern microscopy. It has also been noted that, other than DNA settings, there is an absence of databases supporting population match probabilities of a laboratory “match” testified to by experts. This absence gives rise to considerable doubt as to the ultimate value of any such conclusions, whether couched in terms of “
similarity,” “consistency,” “lack of dissimilarities,”
or the like. Nonetheless, there is ongoing judicial support for forensic sciences such as hair, fiber, soil, paint, footwear, and tire impressions. This is especially the case in the area of ballistics regarding gun type and brand, and bullet and shell casing identifications. As opposed to the majority of the forensic sciences, ballistics experts may couch their matching findings in terms of certainty, and often do so.
