If you are ever implicated in an event involving cartridge case analysis, consider this:

https://phys.org/news/2023-10-...paign=daily-nwletter

Thank you for that. I'm skeptical of, and question everything ballistic forensics related.

My skepticism is especially piqued by how certain some folks (prosecutors) are about this field.

A recent thread somewhat related:

https://sigforum.com/eve/forum...0601935/m/6550045105

I've seen similar psychological reaches in criminal defense seminars before and they're basically BS. What's being advocated is pro-defense bias, similar to suggestions that fingerprints smudges which are unidentifiable, should be described as "exculpatory" rather than simply UNIDENTIFIABLE.

Ballistics evidence can be highly variable as to quality, since projectiles can be significantly damaged upon impact with the victim or other things struck after leaving the barrel. The firearm tested can be degraded due to intentional damage or degradation caused by exposure to a hostile environment. Using these kinds of issues to bolster a defense by psychologists (who don't know shit about tool mark analysis) isn't "science", it's defense advocacy cloaked as "social justice."

I spent more than 30 years in law enforcement (including over a decade as an investigator), and most of the last 15 years as a defense investigator and expert resource. While I certainly believe exculpatory evidence is important and can/should be used by defense attorneys to assist in their duty to their clients, these kinds of mischaracterizations can and do lead to skepticism of the attorneys' reliability and that of the experts they utilize. It's exactly the same kind of tactic used when a defense attorney claims that, "We don't KNOW all fingerprints are different, simply because we haven't found two people with the same fingerprint(s) YET!"