The upcoming (next week) American Academy of Forensic Sciences meeting (2014) should result in changes regarding the relationship between the AAFS and the bitemark certifying group. I think their history of bad convictions are finally going to catch up with them via the year long National Commission of Forensic Science scrutiny of the AAFS.
Being “tough on crime” is a cliche used by some involved in politics, law enforcement, and used by certain forensic practitioners. I prefer the phrase “smart on crime.” Both may sound similar, but the “smart” inference means that forensic developments, empirical research and vigorous study of legal outcomes in cases of questionable forensics are now in play. Almost 50% of 311 DNA based exoneration cases have questionable or inaccurate prosecution forensic expertise. These 311 individuals have been represented by the Innocent Project and the Innocence Network. Both are national litigation and public policy organizations dedicated to exonerating wrongfully convicted individuals by DNA testing and reforming the criminal justice system to prevent future injustice.
This brand new 1/2/2014 article in THE VERGE focuses on the intersection between two diametrically opposite forensic methods. Its a very good read and details the most recent exoneration of Gerald Richardson via DNA colliding…
View original post 289 more words
FORENSICS and LAW in FOCUS @ CSIDDS | News and Trends 