8127/frame/fm

 
iv.
Firearms.
The subject of firearms is always highly inflammatory (pun
optional), no matter what the aspect, and the forensic analysis of guns and
their related accoutrements fulfills that tradition with vigor. It must be
emphasized, however, that bullet markings are no more than a subset of
toolmarks, yet another category of comparison evidence. Luke May, one of
the first American criminalists, pioneered the organized study of toolmarks,
in particular striation analysis (May, 1930; 1936). Because bullets generally
kill more directly than tools, the art of bullet comparison took center stage
directly following World War I. Because the origin of toolmarks is random
in nature, toolmarks, including bullet comparison, have the potential to be
individualizing evidence. Several workers, in particular Biasotti (1959), have
performed seminal studies aimed at provided a statistical basis for the inter-
pretation of toolmark evidence. However, the firearms community has yet
to embrace a truly quantitative basis to support a conclusion of individuality;
most examiners continue to rely on personal experience and judgment (Mur-
dock and Biasotti, 1997; Nichols, 1997). In 1835, Henry Goddard, one of
Scotland Yard’s original Bow Street Runners, linked a bullet to its mold on
the basis of an easily visible flaw that coincided in both (Thorwald, 1964).
In 1889, after rifling had been developed, Lacassagne individualized a bullet
to a gun on the basis of the number of lands and grooves (Thorwald, 1964).
We can only hope that the right man was convicted. In 1913, Victor Balth-
azard, professor of forensic medicine at the Sorbonne, published the first
article discussing breach block, firing pin, extractor, and ejector markings on
* Although some studies have been performed, they have been relatively limited in geog-
raphy and scope. However, we also recognized the scope of the problem and give credit to
these investigators for attempting a complex, arduous, and generally thankless task. (Pounds
and Smalldon, 1975; Home and Dudley, 1980; Kidd and Robertson, 1982; Robertson et al.,
1982; Robertson and Lloyd, 1984; Deadman, 1984a,b; Cordiner et al., 1985; Parybyk and
Lokan, 1986; Allard and Wiggins, 1987; Coxon et al., 1992; Palmer and Chinherende, 1996;
Grieve and Biermann, 1997; Roux and Margot, 1997; Houck and Siegal, 1999).
8127/frame/ch02 Page 36 Friday, July 21, 2000 11:51 AM

---

The Evolution of Forensic Science
37
cartidge cases for the purpose of determining from which weapon they were
fired (Thorwald, 1964). This was the beginning of the realization that, like
all comparison evidence, the minutiae contained within the gross markings
of firearms evidence provide the individualizing potential.
The nature of firearms evidence seems to have attracted one the earliest
concentrations of self-professed experts. In its earliest incarnation, bullet
comparison required little more than a passing knowledge of firearms, a
magnifying glass, and the ability to provide an opinion, whether based in
fact or not. “Dr.” Albert Hamilton was the most grandiose of the new class
of “professional experts,” advertising himself as an expert in practically every
aspect of criminalistics including firearms. In 1917, he testified at the trial of
Charles Stielow that “the bullets that killed the defendant’s employer could
have been fired by no other weapon.” Charles Waite had languished as an
employee at the New York State Prosecutor’s office until he was selected to
act as an assistant to a governor-appointed commission formed to reexamine
the firearms evidence from the Stielow case. Fortunately, before Stielow sat
in the electric chair, the evidence was, at Charles Waite’s urging, reexamined
by Max Posner of Bauch and Lomb. Posner discovered and documented a
manufacturing flaw in the barrel that produced the bullets in question, but
not in the murder weapon, excluding any association between the two. Thus,
a charlatan inadvertently paved the road for the development of legitimate
bullet comparison, a cause that was to be ably championed by Charles Waite
(Thorwald, 1964).
It was not until after World War I that Charles Waite in New York first
set out to catalogue manufacturing data about weapons. The Stielow trial,
in which he worked directly with Posner, was his introduction to forensic
firearm examination. The realization that even modern mass-production
methods left individualizing marks on weapon barrels and moving parts led
to his use of microscopic techniques to compare bullet markings. His work
eventually attracted Calvin Goddard (no relation to Henry), who led the
group’s effort to perfect the comparison microscope, enabling bullets to be
compared side by side in the same visual field (Thorwald, 1964).
The trial of Sacco and Vanzetti in the mid-1920s in Bridgewater, Massa-
chusetts, engendered the equivalent of a full-employment act for all firearms
experts of the day, both legitimate and charlatan. In the final analysis, Calvin
Goddard’s opinion that “bullet III” was fired from Sacco’s gun led to the
convictions of both defendants and to their deaths in the electric chair. In
1961, Goddard’s analyses were duplicated by the forensic firearms commu-
nity, and his conclusions decisively upheld. Goddard’s work on the Saint
Valentine’s day massacre in Chicago in 1929 led to the establishment of one
of the first criminalistics laboratories in the United States on the campus of
Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois. As with several other forms of
8127/frame/ch02 Page 37 Friday, July 21, 2000 11:51 AM

---

38
Principles and Practice of Criminalistics
evidence, the most recent developments have been centered around devel-
oping a computer database that can be accessed by federal, state, and local
crime laboratories around the country. NIBIN, the FBIs answer to firearms
evidence (guns, bullets, and cartridge cases), is particularly useful in attempt-
ing to link serial shooting investigations.
The other aspect of firearms investigations, detection of gunshot residue
(GSR) on the hands of a shooter, had a pretty sorry beginning. The original
method used to test for the presence of nitrates on a suspect’s hands consisted
of exposing a paraffin cast to diphenylamine and sulfuric acid. The produc-
tion of a blue color was supposedly indicative of recent exposure to gunpow-
der residue. Unfortunately, the test was so nonspecific, reacting to most
oxidizing agents, including common substances such as those contained in
cigarettes and playing cards, that it was quickly abandoned (Hatcher et al.,
1957). Subsequently, elemental tests for the lead, barium, and antimony
found in primer residue were adopted for this use. Atomic absorption (AA)
and neutron activation analysis (NAA) were both explored for possible use
in detecting primer residue, and both were abandoned because of interpre-
tational problems. Most recently, scanning electron microscopy using energy
dispersive X-ray analysis (SEM-EDX) has been employed in the elemental
analysis of GSR. Although scientists agree that this procedure reliably detects
primer residue by a combination of visual detection of stereotypical spheres
and X-ray analysis for the characteristic elements, the probative value of any
type of GSR test is still a topic of heated debate within the forensic commu-
nity. An example of misuse of the paraffin test to convict six Irishmen in the
bombing of Birmingham pub in 1974 (the Birmingham Six) is illustrated in
Sidebar 1.