Tool marks evaluation arose out of the necessity to evaluate marks made at a crime scene without an academic basis. Tool mark identification lacks a scientific foundation. Examiners cannot determine the uniqueness of tool marks based on the comparison method because the lack of quantifiable data. Literature has explained that the NAS report has critiqued the reliability of tool mark examination in court. The subjectivity of the examiner is evident during analysis, which discredits the use of pattern evidence. These subjective observations lead to errors when determining uniqueness. The judicial system must discredit the validity of tool mark examinations until a quantifiable method is established. Researchers need to apply new research to proliferate the acceptance of pattern evidence. …show more content…
E. (1999). The history of firearm and tool mark identification. The Association of Firearm and Tool Mark Examiners Journal, 31(3).
Kumar, R., Patial, N., & Singh, S. (2013). Identification of tool marks of a sickle on a telephone cable. Journal of Forensic Sciences,58(1), 217-219.
Page, M., Taylor, J., & Blenkin, M. (2011). Uniqueness in the forensic identification sciences Fact or fiction? Forensic Science International, 206(1), 12-18.
Petraco, N. D. K., Shenkin, P., Speir, J., Diaczuk, P., Pizzola, P. A., Gambino, C., & Petraco, N. (2012). Addressing the National Academy of Sciences' challenge: A method for statistical pattern comparison of striated tool marks. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 57(4), 900-911.
Nichols, R. G. (2007). Defending the scientific foundations of the firearms and tool mark identification discipline: Responding to recent challenges. Journal of Forensic Sciences (Wiley-Blackwell), 52(3), 586-594.
US Legal (2015). The Daubert Decision and the Supreme Court’s Construction of Rule 702. Retrieved from