What the CALIFORNIA Innocence Project has to say about bitemark evidence. Undoubtedly this is why forensic reform opponents want to kick exoneration litigators off the NYS Forensic Science Commission.
From the CIP. “The issues we face: bite-mark-evidence”
Please note: the video contained in this link is talking about forensic odontologists who “specialize” in bitemark (w/out DNA) comparisons with a suspect’s teeth. This is a very small group and does not reflect on all those forensically trained dentists who reject these methods as being unreliable.
I have been perusing threads in the press concerning dialogue of forensic practitioners about the gaps and misapplications of their forensics in the US criminal justice system. There aren’t many. For the most part, there are a vocal few within the forensic communities who “come out. And, they are NOT working at police managed crime labs. Generally they are older and have “retired out” or quit to enter the private (aka criminal defense) consultant business.
I am not saying that the practitioner communities are not talking about themselves and their methods. That’s been happening in committees constructed by government agencies since the 2009 NAS Report on forensics came out in 2009.
It is telling that despite these collegial activities, the only outcomes of significant “reform” have been the FBI decommissioning their “hair unit” and backing off on “bullet-lead” matching. This was on its own, after years of “prompts” from the news media and lawyer…
View original post 810 more words
FORENSICS and LAW in FOCUS @ CSIDDS | News and Trends 
The cool video on bitemarks does not distinguish Forensic Odontologists who do NOT perform bitemark work. It makes all Forensic Odontologists look bad! Please change to “Forensic Odontologists who specialize in bitemark work”. Please?
>
Thanks very much Mary Beth. Very good point. There are very few odonts that are performing these unreliable “skin-reading” practices.
Thank you, Mike! Will you bring it to the attention of the CIP?