It's an interesting podcast, but their interviewee sucked and she didn't really cite any actual science; just hand waved away things.
I've found the studies they cite on fingerprints (your fingerprint could match up with 1 in ~300 people; they're not as unique as once though -- the study that's often cited is from the FBI) but I can't find anything on gun/bullet print identification.
Supposedly you can't match a bullet to a gun, especially with more modern firearms with precise milling. Yet all the sourced I've found should photos of bullets with distinct patterns that seem to match a particular firearm.
Re:Are courts keeping “junk science” out of the courtroom?
by manicdee on Monday February 17, 2020 @07:07PM
(#22352208)
Then we find that all these photos are stock photos from the depths of FBI labs and none of the photographs show an actual slug collected from a crime scene.
https://citationsneeded.libsyn.com/episode-94-the-goofy-pseu...
It's an interesting podcast, but their interviewee sucked and she didn't really cite any actual science; just hand waved away things.
I've found the studies they cite on fingerprints (your fingerprint could match up with 1 in ~300 people; they're not as unique as once though -- the study that's often cited is from the FBI) but I can't find anything on gun/bullet print identification.
Supposedly you can't match a bullet to a gun, especially with more modern firearms with precise milling. Yet all the sourced I've found should photos of bullets with distinct patterns that seem to match a particular firearm.