The US federal look on the forensic issues relating to convictions of innocent defendants is on page 10. Its mostly platitudes and clearly misdirects the reader to consider that stats used by innocence litigators are flawed. The article’s mainstays are, of course, Gould and Collins. For decades they have been the spear-chucking supporters for crime lab orgs praising their accuracies and infallibility. Bitemarks even get some praise. Ridiculous white-wash.
NIJ forensics 2018
This looks to optimize the recognition of crime scene biological samples prior to performing high cost DNA analysis.
For those unaware, the cop forensics use of “individualization” for pattern-matchers ain’t science. These authors explain why in simple terms for all of us.
…….reads like my first 10 years of training from the bitemarkers at the ABFO.
This fellow Thomas Young surely has adopted a self-assured confidence in areas of creationism and child abuse. One judge took him apart for being “a team of one.”
His anti-deductive ramble about Sherlock Holmes published in Psychology Today.
Then there is a more sobering look at his forensic pathology repertoire.
The cases keep coming back on appeal, the stories are horrific, and the people responsible for railroading the innocent keep their jobs. All deny making mistakes and claim to be pursuing “justice.” The damage caused by the bitemark dentists continues unabated.
This data driven look at governmental says the use of physical evidence before arrest is lacking. Testing happening after arrest is not considered independent and is used merely to confirm prosecutorial conclusions. Some may be shocked at this The authors have much more to reveal
Fighting for John Kunco’s freedom. These attorneys never give up. Today’s hearing in PA should bring John home.
Decades of effort to arrive at this point.
Another ridiculous bitemark case emerges into public view after 30+ years
When DNA is missed by law enforcement, DAs use the lies of bitemark advocates to convict. These dentists have known for decades that their bitemark testimony regarding human identification was unproven. They didn’t care in the John Junco 1991 conviction, and some still don’t care. Radley Balko’s new article says the bitemarkers are “unraveling.” Someone should tell the American Academy of Forensic Sciences to start paying attention.