The Forensic Examination and Interpretation of Tool Marks

Baldwin, David P.; Birkett, John; Facey, Owen; Rabey, Gilleon

doi:10.1002/9781118374078

Cited by 7 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…wrote: "Since the two fracture surfaces of a break will show a mirror image (negative or reverse) of the detail upon them, where they were once joined, it is necessary to get all of the features in the same orientation in order to compare like with like." [5] It can be noticed that the tear line between the segments contains relatively low level of information (Figure 8). That is the reason why the physical match between the two pieces is not significant and why we resorted to using topographic surface comparison instead.…”

Section: Re Sults and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Following tearing/breaking, the second stage in the procedure involves photography of the surface topography of the two pieces. Then, one of the photographs is horizontally mirror‐flipped prior to examination, that is, in order to match the orientation and the location (coordinates) of the marks on the two surfaces to be compared [5].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Silicon rubber is applied to the cross-section region of one of the torn/broken pieces-in-question. Then, the surface of the silicon rubber and the surface of other pieces-in-question are compared [5,6] by applying side-by-side comparison [7]. This type of comparison may be assisted by using comparison microscopy techniques.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In most cases, the traditional physical matching method involves comparison along lines. It is considered whether the tear/fracture lines of the two pieces fit together in such a way that both pieces complete each other [5]. Consequently, the matching process features one‐dimensional details.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Photographic comparison of surface topography as a viable solution when physical match is challenging

Finkelstein¹,

Levy²,

Levi³

2020

Journal of Forensic Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Physical matching methods are a family of well-known methods that are utilized in order to determine whether two pieces of a tearable/breakable material used to be one object. When performing physical match of polymers, it is sometimes difficult to reach an unambiguous conclusion. This is due to various reasons. One is when the tear/ How to cite this article: Finkelstein NS, Levy O, Levi A. Photographic comparison of surface topography as a viable solution when physical match is challenging.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Re Sults and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Photographic comparison of surface topography as a viable solution when physical match is challenging

Finkelstein¹,

Levy²,

Levi³

2020

Journal of Forensic Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Experiment 26:Plastic Film Examinations

2021

Practical Forensic Microscopy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Insights to enhance the examination of tool marks in human cartilage

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This work deals with the examination of tool marks in human cartilage. We compared the effectiveness of several cleaning methods on cut marks in porcine cartilage. The method cleaning by multiple casts achieved the significantly highest scores (P = 0.02). Furthermore, we examined the grain-like elevations (dots) located on casts of cut cartilage. The results of this study suggest that the casting material forms these dots when penetrating cartilage cavities, which are areas where the strong collagen fibres leave space for the chondrocytes. We performed fixation experiments to avoid this, without success. In addition, 31 casting materials were compared regarding contrast under light-microscope and 3D tool marks scanner. Under the light-microscope, brown materials achieved significantly higher values than grey (P = 0.02) or black (P = 0.00) whereas under the 3D scanner, black materials reached higher contrast values than grey (P = 0.04) or brown (P = 0.047). To compare the accuracy and reproducibility of 6 test materials for cartilage, we used 10 knives to create cut marks that were subsequently scanned. During the alignment of the individual signals of each mark, the cross-correlation coefficients (Xmax) and lags (LXmax) were calculated. The signals of the marks in agarose were aligned with significantly fewer lags and achieved significantly higher cross-correlation coefficients compared to all tested materials (both P = 0.00). Moreover, we determined the cross-correlation coefficients (XC) for known-matches (KM) per material. Agarose achieved significantly higher values than AccuTrans®, Clear Ballistics™, and gelatine (all P = 0.00). The results of this work provide valuable insights for the forensic investigation of marks in human costal cartilage.

show abstract

The Forensic Examination and Interpretation of Tool Marks

Cited by 7 publications

References 0 publications

Photographic comparison of surface topography as a viable solution when physical match is challenging

Photographic comparison of surface topography as a viable solution when physical match is challenging

Experiment 26:Plastic Film Examinations

Insights to enhance the examination of tool marks in human cartilage

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About