ABSTRACT
A reference ballistic image database (RBID) contains images of cartridge cases fired in firearms that are in circulation: a ballistic fingerprint database. The performance of an RBID was investigated a decade ago by De Kinder et al. using IBIS(®) Heritage™ technology. The results of that study were published in this journal, issue 214. Since then, technologies have evolved quite significantly and novel apparatus have become available on the market. The current research article investigates the efficiency of another automated ballistic imaging system, Evofinder(®) using the same database as used by De Kinder et al. The results demonstrate a significant increase in correlation efficiency: 38% of all matches were on first position of the Evofinder correlation list in comparison to IBIS(®) Heritage™ where only 19% were on the first position. Average correlation times are comparable to the IBIS(®) Heritage™ system. While Evofinder(®) demonstrates specific improvement for mutually correlating different ammunition brands, ammunition dependence of the markings is still strongly influencing the correlation result because the markings may vary considerably. As a consequence a great deal of potential hits (36%) was still far down in the correlation lists (positions 31 and lower). The large database was used to examine the probability of finding a match as a function of correlation list verification. As an example, the RBID study on Evofinder(®) demonstrates that to find at least 90% of all potential matches, at least 43% of the items in the database need to be compared on screen and this for breech face markings and firing pin impression separately. These results, although a clear improvement to the original RBID study, indicate that the implementation of such a database should still not be considered nowadays.