Soon @csidds will publish the actual bite mark photos from this research.
A previous blog from CSI DDS stated that poor bite mark reliability (how often experts agree) is proof of the suspect nature of the outdated methods stubbornly maintained by leaders of the ABFO. Their opposition to review of its membership’s casework is well established and contrasts with the efforts of the FBI in reviewing their cases involving microscopic hair analysis. The dentists prefer to attack each other to put the blame on “bad apples” rather than their inadequate methods.
In early 2008 Professor Iain Pretty and myself undertook a personal review of bite mark casework I had participated in from 2000 to 2007. This research was the initial attempt to establish a relationship between the forensic “value” of the injury patterns admitted by prosecution bite mark experts and the courts’ outcomes. The link at the end will bring you to the 2008 AAFS presentation of our findings. The case categories…
View original post 425 more words