Recent Rash of US Exonerations Only the Surface: Many More Remain Wrongfully Imprisoned : Forensic Science contributions

Failed forensic methods continue to affect lives and families of those wrongfully convicted.

FORENSICS and LAW in FOCUS @ CSIDDS | News and Trends


Jeffrey Deskovic, an exoneree himself (NY), writes about the increase in wrongful convictions being overturned in the US from a very personal perspective. He focuses on the root causes of these injustices such as incentivised witnesses (aka snitches), prosecutorial misconducti, dishonest judges and cops, and forensic fraud and junk science like bitemarks.

His statements about forensic junk science and fraud are particularly telling and parallel what I have posted about. here, here, and here.

It is no surprise that forensic associations like the American Academy of Forensic Sciences refuses to admit that they sponsor one sub-group which still promulagates ‘bitemark identification’ (without the use of DNA) in courts. My post on that subject is here.

This is an excerpt from Deskovic’s article. His POV is clear.

Junk science. For 40 years, FBI experts have testified in court about “bullet lead analysis” a procedure in which bullets…

View original post 139 more words

About csidds

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

2 Responses to Recent Rash of US Exonerations Only the Surface: Many More Remain Wrongfully Imprisoned : Forensic Science contributions

  1. mbhauptle says:

    I have to agree, it’s the 25th case. The jury bought into the bitemark “match” drama, gravitating to evidence which in any way, is of a graphic nature. Who did that case? ABFO?

  2. csidds says:

    According to my sources, the 25th should have been PRADE, where the recent DNA (years after the conviction) exoneration was then quickly reversed a couple years ago. The DNA came from clothing directly over the suspect bite wound. The PRADE pros expert at that time was Frank Wright of the ABFO. He has come in on the side of the bite mark matchers. Apparently, he is a specialist of “high quality bitemarks” as quoted here. This is where he says DNA should be collected from the bite site. I guess the PRADE appellate court judges missed that one.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your 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