Bitemarker now claims to be “technical” expert to avoid courtroom scrutiny. 

The ABFO bitemark mouthpiece of legal wisdom lays a new egg within this WaPo article continuing news about the 26th exoneration from junk dental testimony. He espouses a strange brew of bitemark admissibility that leaves judges out of the role of applying Rules of Scientific Evidence before allowing it to be brought before a jury. Brilliant move on his part. 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/10/13/texas-mans-conviction-overturned-after-bite-mark-evidence-discredited/

About csidds

Dr. Michael Bowers is a long time forensic consultant in the US and international court systems.
This entry was posted in AAFS, ABFO, Bad Forensic Science, Bitemarks, criminal justice reform, Forensic Science Bias, wrongful convictions. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Bitemarker now claims to be “technical” expert to avoid courtroom scrutiny. 

  1. John Lentini says:

    Where did anyone say they were “technical” but not “scientific?” It’s not in the first link, and not likely to fly in any case. The Supreme Court in Kumho (1999) held that there is no difference as far as the rules of evidence are concerned between “Scientific, technical and other” kinds of expertise. Expertise is expertise, and the judge does not have to make the distinction.

  2. csidds says:

    Absolutely right. This “technical” dental guy apparently went to law school in TX. It didnt have much effect.

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 )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s