Forensic Analysis and Interpretation of Tool Marks

The forensic analysis and interpretation of tool marks raise for consideration key methods and advances in the field of tool marks in forensic science. This chapter shows how tool mark analysis can be utilized in the course of criminal investigations. The focus of the chapter is on bringing together as much scientific knowledge in the area as possible in an accessible manner. It covers all aspects of tool mark evidence from the crime scene to the courtroom. This chapter provides information about tool marks in an effort to assist tool mark examiners as well as people practicing forensic science, crime scene examiners, crime investigating officers and members of the legal profession. It includes information about the analysis of tool marks at the crime scene and in the laboratory, the interpretation and assessment of challenges for examination and interpretation and also the way in which tool mark evidence can be presented in a courtroom.

The Comparative Study of Tool Marks on Non-Ferrous Metalwork from Archaeological Contexts: Methodological Considerations, Case Studies and Experimental Archaeology

The aim of this paper is to discuss methodological issues of comparative tool mark studies (with special attention to decorative punched motifs), using a case study on sheet-gold metalwork from the Middle and Late Avar Period (7th–8th centuries AD). The historical interpretation of tool marks on nonferrous metalwork1 can take place at different levels of complexity. In some cases, the identification of products from the same craftsperson is possible, via the identification of specific tools. However, when interpreting the results of comparative tool mark studies, many aspects are relevant, including individual variations in tool usage. In this context, experimental archaeology can facilitate the interpretation of tool marks, as is demonstrated in a preliminary study on two types of punches, which are common on high-quality metalwork from the Avar Period.

The Uncertain Future of Forensic Science

Forensic science is at a crossroads. In the last two decades, often-used forms of pattern evidence, such as fingerprint, tool mark, and bite mark identification, have faced significant criticism for lacking adequate scientific validation or proven reliability. Is this the beginning of a sea change, signaling the rise of a science-based, empirically grounded approach to these forms of evidence, both in the courtroom and in the crime laboratory? Or has the increased attention produced Band-Aids rather than meaningful and lasting cures? This essay argues that the current state of forensic science reform is both “half empty” and “half full.” Looking first at bite mark evidence, then at modifications in the language used by forensic scientists for their courtroom testimony, and, finally, at the creation and the elimination of the National Commission on Forensic Science, this essay argues that we have thus far seen modest and meaningful – but far from adequate or transformative – reform. Our best hope for sustained, substantial changes necessary for improving forensic science evidence within our system of justice requires the creation of another national commission or other institutional body, made up of both research scientists and other institutional stakeholders, and situated as to prevent “capture” by either forensic practitioners or advocates within our adversarial system.