Empirical science ignored in these new and old cases; Bitemarks win, DNA loses

ForensicsSchool

When science is not important,  forensic evidence is just hocus-pocus ( i.e. mumbo-jumbo; “complicated activity or language usually intended to obscure and confuse” ) in the courtroom.

All I can say from the cases  in The Latest from the World of Bite mark Evidence is that…..

  • some (not all) prosecutors only use DNA evidence when it suits the prosecution,
  • most (but not all) gatekeepers are too over-worked to read Science, or the forensic publications of the National Academies of Science, and
  • law /judges’ schools need exposure to good and bad science in their coursework.

Here is what law prof Brendan Garrett’s Forensics Forum has to say about this:

http://forensicsforum.net/2016/02/02/if-prosecutors-can-use-unreliable-bitemark-comparison-against-defendants-should-defendants-be-able-to-same-unreliable-science-in-their-defense/

 

About csidds

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

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