The ABFO bitemark group of thAAFS proclaim in court their “new methodology” is admissible. Some Judges believe them and are willing to risk their long history of inadequate empirical proofs. They also refuse to aid in investigating 40 years of bitemark cases where their “new” methods did not exist. The American Academy of Forensic Sciences doesn’t care either. This is despite the public finding the FBI scandal of flawed forensics “shocking” and “appalling.”
I am rarely shocked about nefarious dealings or subterfuge in the ecosystem of forensic ‘science’ and the criminal justice arena. But I just read that a police department has a cadre of 3 “anonymous” dentists in Indianapolis, Indiana, who provide dental assistance to police authorities. That assistance, of itself is typical, as most larger jurisdictions and states have a practicing dentist available for dental identifications. NAMUS is a national group of mostly volunteer dentists who assist in missing and unknown person investigations and dental data collection for the federal government.
The shocking part is police use of certain dental findings in police interrogations of suspects from this same “anonymous” group (or any other dental consultant). Points of my objection are, bitemark “matches” or comparisons. Lets jump past the unreliability aspects of this subject and just call it junk. Regardless of this, dentists have not become mum about their 60 years of…
View original post 417 more words
FORENSICS and LAW in FOCUS @ CSIDDS | News and Trends 