![Picture](/uploads/2/7/6/5/27655795/5289780.jpg?398)
History of Discovery
Nearly two hundred years ago, firearms identification focused primarily on the identification of the caliber, any macroscopic imperfections present on the bullet, and the shape and type of bullet used in the crime. However, firearm identification saw an increased interest in the late 1800s to the early 1900s and thus firearm identification was developed into a more thorough process. During this time of peaking interest, firearm identification was used in several court cases within the United States, and more research was conducted throughout the U.S. and Europe on the subject.
Nearly two hundred years ago, firearms identification focused primarily on the identification of the caliber, any macroscopic imperfections present on the bullet, and the shape and type of bullet used in the crime. However, firearm identification saw an increased interest in the late 1800s to the early 1900s and thus firearm identification was developed into a more thorough process. During this time of peaking interest, firearm identification was used in several court cases within the United States, and more research was conducted throughout the U.S. and Europe on the subject.
![Picture](/uploads/2/7/6/5/27655795/7999880.jpg?393)
In 1900, Dr. R. Kockel of Leipzig was the first to use striation matching of toolmarks. In his first paper, Kockel was able to identify knife cuts made in wood through oblique lighting and photography. In another one of his papers, Kockel described the process he used in which he examined tool marks through magnification and measuring relative spacing with calipers. In addition, Kockel had pointed out the change in the geometry of the tool mark as the angle of the knife blade would be changed during an attack.
In the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s there was continued increase of forensic toolmark and firearms analysis. In fact, the Scientific Crime Detection Laboratory became operational at Northwestern University in Chicago in 1930 and was soon followed by the Federal Bureau of Identification Laboratory in 1932. Several other laboratories started
opening up to assist police forces in firearms and toolmark
identification.
In the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s there was continued increase of forensic toolmark and firearms analysis. In fact, the Scientific Crime Detection Laboratory became operational at Northwestern University in Chicago in 1930 and was soon followed by the Federal Bureau of Identification Laboratory in 1932. Several other laboratories started
opening up to assist police forces in firearms and toolmark
identification.
![Picture](/uploads/2/7/6/5/27655795/7525949.png?394)
For the most part, early studies and cases largely focused on ballistic toolmarks, with the exception of a few studies including Dr. Kockel’s work as previously described. In 1948, Dr. Thomas of the University of Ghent added to the toolmark references by publishing a paper describing the toolmarks left on a skull by an axe. Since then, many different types of tool marks have been characterized.
(Axe Marks on a Human Skull With Various Impressions)
(Axe Marks on a Human Skull With Various Impressions)
![Picture](/uploads/2/7/6/5/27655795/4023930.jpg?388)
For just under a century, forensic examiners have been relying primarily on comparison microscopes to compare the microscopic features of toolmarks found at a crime scene with those generated by suspected tools. The success and accuracy of this examination process is dependant on the examiner's training and experience, and relies heavily on the subjective judgment of the examiner to assess whether two compared tool marks are more similar than toolmarks generated by different tools. Thus, results might become skewed through human error (I.e. whether the examiner was focused enough, if they were tired, or if they exercised poor judgment). In addition, microscopic images are only capable of providing an indirect measure of the underlying toolmark surface topography through slope variations and shadowing, and are affected by lighting conditions, exposure settings, and variations in reflectivity. New technologies have been developed to create 3D imaging of the tool marks, for more accurate results.
(*See Section on Controversy).
(*See Section on Controversy).
In 1969, the Association of Firearm and Tool Mark Examiners (AFTE) was formed. The original members were made up of specialists from all across the United States and Canada, and were comprised of both civilian and police technicians. To continue this growth in firearm and toolmark examination, the AFTE has been hosting annual training seminars at various locations throughout North America since 1970 (To sign up for a seminar, see the home page of this site!) By 1979, there were 149 delegates from seven nations that attended the group’s 10th convention. And a year later, the AFTE had published a 291-page AFTE Glossary, produced by a five-member standardization committee. Then an official AFTE training manual was released in 1992, with new editions of the glossary published in that year and in 1994. Since then, the AFTE membership has included 850 specialists from 40 countries worldwide.
From the 1970s to current there has been a tremendous growth in the development of new technologies to assist in firearm and toolmark identification. For example, standard comparison microscopes have been improved, as they are now equipped with digital cameras and closed circuit television (CCT) units, which allow for direct viewing on a monitor and/or instant documentation using digital photomicrography.
From the 1970s to current there has been a tremendous growth in the development of new technologies to assist in firearm and toolmark identification. For example, standard comparison microscopes have been improved, as they are now equipped with digital cameras and closed circuit television (CCT) units, which allow for direct viewing on a monitor and/or instant documentation using digital photomicrography.