For over 2 decades, the US press has used “inexact” in writing about certain forensic methods which are used to convict criminal defendants. Bitemark experts included. Here is the latest from the New York Times. It uses the debunked FBI’s hair matching system as its focus, but erroneous bitemark cases are included in the video material.
By now — despite the apparent infallibility of detectives from Sherlock Holmes to Lieutenant Columbo, despite the clinical genius of wizards from Dr. Quincy to Gil Grissom — it should surprise no one that forensic science is not the model of exactitude that popular culture might have us believe. The scientific rigor of entrenched forensic disciplines has been challenged for years. Still, we live in a “C.S.I.” world, and television viewers could be forgiven for assuming that laboratory techniques used to catch bad guys are unassailable. In real life, though, the soundness of criminal analysis is being regularly tested, both in America’s labs and in its courtrooms.
See videos and the full content of this headlining article here. It includes bitemark identification “science” as an inexact aspect of forensics.
Try this for an incredible video on “How DNA Changed the World of Forensics.”
Reblogged this on FORENSICS in FOCUS @ CSIDDS | News and Trends and commented:
How DNA changed forensics.