Peterson J L, Markham P N
Department of Criminal Justice, University of Illinois, Chicago, USA.
J Forensic Sci. 1995 Nov;40(6):1009-29.
A preceding article has examined the origins of crime laboratory proficiency testing and the performance of laboratories in the identification and classification of common types of physical evidence. Part II reviews laboratory proficiency in determining if two or more evidence samples shared a common source. Parts I and II together review the results of 175 separate tests issued to crime laboratories over the period 1978 to 1991. Laboratories perform best in determining the origin of finger and palm prints, metals, firearms (bullets and catridge cases), and footwear. Laboratories have moderate success in determining the source of bloodstains, questioned documents, toolmarks, and hair. A final category is of greater concern and includes those evidence categories where 10% or more of results disagree with manufacturers regarding the source of samples. This latter group includes paint, glass, fibers, and body fluid mixtures. The article concludes with a comparison of current findings with earlier LEAA study results, and a discussion of judicial and policy implications.
前一篇文章探讨了犯罪实验室能力验证的起源，以及实验室在常见物证类型的鉴定和分类方面的表现。第二部分回顾了实验室在确定两个或多个证据样本是否来自同一来源方面的能力。第一部分和第二部分共同回顾了1978年至1991年期间发给犯罪实验室的175项单独测试的结果。实验室在确定指纹、掌纹、金属、枪支（子弹和弹壳）以及鞋印的来源方面表现最佳。实验室在确定血迹、可疑文件、工具痕迹和毛发的来源方面取得了一定的成功。最后一类更令人担忧，包括那些有10%或更多结果与制造商在样本来源上存在分歧的证据类别。后一组包括油漆、玻璃、纤维和体液混合物。文章最后将当前的研究结果与早期执法援助管理局（LEAA）的研究结果进行了比较，并讨论了司法和政策影响。
