Another DA ignores DNA exclusion results from a bitemark

News Release: Go to next link to read a DAs ridiculous statement saying the DNA from a bitemark injury (vacating a wrong conviction) should NOT be used to “impune the reliability of” an ABFO bitemark expert and his “methods” who helped convict this innocent man in original trial. The DA says “there is no authority” preventing use of the bitemark pattern at a potential new trial. She’s an idiot and not telling the truth to the court. The NAS report in 2009 informed the US Congress that bitemarks are unreliable for matching to a suspects teeth.

Now go the this link. Below on this page is a a previous blob on this case.
http://www.nj.com/somerset/index.ssf/2013/10/prosecutors_say_they_wont_oppose_vacating_nearly_20-year-old_murder_conviction_in_light_of_new_dna_e.html

When a DA’s case gets reversed based on DNA just call on an ABFO “valid bitemark scientist.”
http://blog.nj.com/perspective/2013/10/the_hard_road_to_innocence_opi.html
There is a growing but at the same time ridiculous list of responses by District Attorney’s facing conviction cases kicked back for retrial or release of the wrongfully convicted.  Some appellate courts take their science seriously (not in California), and when post conviction DNA from a victim’s body, (in the above Richardson case its a BITEMARK), the DAs (not always) tasked to save the day argue for retrials (obstructing the exoneration) based on the disingenuous hypothesis of a “phantom” accomplice present at the time of the crime. In other words, they ignore crime scene DNA they originally failed to collect and analyze.

Many times the defendant’s request for post conviction testing is held up for years. New legislation in some states have streamlined this process.

These prosecution “theoreticians” use whatever was left over from trial (after the appellate remand) as being sufficient to reconvict  “beyond a reasonable doubt.” 

This is where the convicting dentists are brought back to life to counter the DNA. Few dentists jerked back into this post conviction “penalty box” ever recant or admit over reaching with this unvalidated (NAS 2009) evidence. If anything, they are prone to “double down” on their original statements.

Noticing this common thread is easy, as the LIST of bitemark opinions quashed by DNA has grown to its own unacceptable (not for the ABFO leadership) level in recent years. 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, criminal justice, CSI and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to Another DA ignores DNA exclusion results from a bitemark

  1. mbhauptle says:

    These truths are self-evident, what you say is accurate. Where is the AAFS Ethics Committee when this injustice is perpetrated upon those innocent persons? They too, ought to be brought to bear. The NAS report got lost in jargon, in my humble opinion. Subject to judicial interpretation. It is the ABFO who ought to be held accountable for changing this atrocity – this travesty of justice. That an expert witness tell the Whole Truth on the stand, and proffer an accurate error rate!

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s