BITEMARK EVIDENCE : THE FORENSIC DICHOTOMY : 24 CASES VS THEORIES

The courtroom and public rhetoric of bite mark proponents clearly ignores the reality of their casework. My latest book “Forensic Testimony” reveals the disconnect between judicial rules of evidence (which indicates the courts’ expectation of scientific reliability) and the self-serving testimony of certain forensic expert witnesses regardless of the possible threat to the public.

The media attachment to this blog is a PowerPoint presentation (in .pdf) titled: Bitemark Evidence – Theory vs Actual Cases

It contains more bitemark casework showing use of  this speculative form of forensic identification. See if you can tell the the “good” cases from the “bad” cases.

The unparalleled dichotomy between the legal record versus  the testimony of prosecution bitemark dentists in exoneration cases such as Brewer, Brooks, Starks, Stinson, Hill, Young, Jackson, Krone is truly incredible.

See it all here:   Description of Bite Mark Exonerations and Arrests

About csidds

Dr. Michael Bowers is a long time forensic consultant in the US and international court systems.
This entry was posted in Bite Marks, Bitemarks, Forensic Science, wrongful convictions and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to BITEMARK EVIDENCE : THE FORENSIC DICHOTOMY : 24 CASES VS THEORIES

  1. H.J.Smy says:

    Reblogged this on forensics4educators and commented:
    Check out the attached presentation. A great example of teaching the issues associated with forensic evidence, backed up with case studies

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s