Befuddled #Forensic #Science dentists resort to a color chart as a safeguard against their history of faulty convictions

For the life of me, I cannot translate into words, what the think tank (really a kiddie pond) of the bitemark group (the ABFO recognized by the AAFS as an elite forensics certifying board) is now up to. Agronomy? Aborism (sic)? Word puzzles?  Hey there guys and gals, how about some empirical research? Instead you give us a tree?

The TREE copy

Are they confused? Or just amateur sleuths, closeted charlatans, poorly trained, semi- literate, desperate, foolish?

Considering the adjectives used in the NAS 2009 report on forensic bitemark “science”, the ABFO clearly has ignored this esteemed multi-scientific governmental advisory group’s message. Some descriptors in its scathing review of the ABFO operative bitemark assumptions and validity claims can be condensed in two words: Junk Science (as in NO science research relevant to what they claim in US courts).

It’s been reported to me that this is the ABFO’s first step in creating its”methodology.”

Nice colors. Uh, what if someone is colorblind?

About csidds

Dr. Michael Bowers is a long time forensic consultant in the US and international court systems.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to Befuddled #Forensic #Science dentists resort to a color chart as a safeguard against their history of faulty convictions

  1. Pingback: Advances in Forensic Fire Science Leads to Man’s Release | SciTech Connect

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