Nothing can more chilling than what is going on in forensics over the last 5 years. Certain national forensic organizations have and are still being investigated by US federal, Congressional or executive agencies or committees.
Certain forensic disciplines are no different. Interestingly, some groups step up to the plate and become proactive and participate in public discussions (as in the National Commission on Forensic Science), while others deny faults and object or become mute or nasty.
I’ve been getting nasty looks and comments for years from the pro-bitemark ID groups around the world. It seems to all have begun in 1999 when I was asked to co-author a chapter called “Identification from Bitemarks.’ This chapter is in a series of volumes published by West (law) Publishing Inc. It is still being updated and available. The total compendium is called “Modern Scientific Evidence: The Law and Science of Expert Testimony.” Both were a mainstay reference of the 2009 NRC (NAS) report.
This link MSE_Ch_37_Bitemarks will allow the reader to a previous iteration of Ch 37 “Identification from Bitemarks.” Hot topics include:
37:7 erroneous identification and convictions
37.11: NRC (NAS) Report on Odontology.
37:12: Scientific status and proficiency testing.
37:13: Error rates.
37E: National Research Counsel Comments.