How DNA changed forensics.
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…
View original post 52 more words