This is a lapel button representing the”Ouija Board of Forensic Odontology” (from the Ray Krone Family). They are paroding the ABFO bitemark bunch.
The latest on the cynical attitude of some in the American Board of Forensic Odontology is here. (longggg read from WaPo.
The public persona a smugness of these dental guys and gals that possesses a perfect pitch their courtroom nonsense and dumb-ass “we know better than than science.” attitudes.
Bring on Texas into this shoot out seen in the media.
The task of reviewing the “substance,” bases” and “practice” of the discredited bitemark crowd has fallen to the great state of Texas. Its Forensic Commission is in need of some help as the cases of these itinerant consultants within the state (all “bite-readers” are localized in medium to large cities ) claim they have no “database” or “archives” of their fully adjudicated ( or cases leading to pleas bargains) bitemark opinions. Some would have been defense experts (like me) but most are the prosecution’s experts. Some jurisidictions cannot afford to allow defense counsel any money to hire their own expert and the defendant gets the “bitemark is like a fingerprint treatment.”
Well, its no surprise they claim “no nada,” their organization, the ABFO, refused this idea back when it was first suggested by some of us almost 20 years. The back hall response was based on a self-serving need to “protect” themselves from scrutiny. In fact, this happened even before DNA exonerations were even possible. By 2000 and the Krone case blowing up in the news, their need for secrecy ratcheted up ten-fold. They also didn’t like the “OBFO” buttons worn at their AAFS meetings.
These dentists not working as employees within and supervised by organized police crime labs certainly helps protect them. More often it takes appellate exoneration litigators (as involved in the Innocence Project’s bitemark complaint to the FSI ) to ferret out what the bitemark advocates’ workproduct, court exhibits and court transcripts.
Its also most often that the bitemarker’s refuse to voluntarily open up past cases for review when I have asked them along the lines of “if you are so certain of your opinion, why won’t you open up the the materials so I can admire your work?”
Anyone can contact the FSC with leads for their investigation. Family, friends and inmate association help groups with knowledge of someone having enured a criminal trial which used bitemark experts can use this info.
Google Scholar, case law, Texas courts, “bite mark”…
Patterson v. State, 509 SW 2d 857
Leal v. Dretke, 428 F. 3d 543
Doyle v. State, 159 Tex. Crim. 310, 263 S.W.2d 779,
Marquez v. State, 725 SW 2d 217
Rodela v. State, 829 SW 2d 845
Bufkin v. State, 207 SW 3d 779
Spence v. State, 795 SW 2d 743
Ngoc Van Le v. State, 733 SW 2d 280
Litaker v. State, 784 SW 2d 73
Pardo v. Simons, 148 SW 3d 181
Chaney v. State, 775 SW 2d 722
Williams v. State, 790 SW 2d 643
Hernandez v. State, 118 SW 3d 469
Cooper v. State, 842 SW 2d 414
Williams v. State, 815 SW 2d 743
In the Interest of SHA, 728 SW 2d 73
Washington v. State, 822 SW 2d 110
Watson v. State, 369 SW 3d 865
…and many, many more
The next TFSC meeting on bitemarks is Nov 16. One of the bitemarkers allowed on the panel just resigned. Too hot in the kitchen. I can see the
Bitemarkers quitting altogether. Then they can run and hide behind their Amer Acad of Forensic Sci protectors.
60 years worth for just one State.