In 2013, FBI began its post conviction review in collaboration with the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the Innocence Project. By 2015, it had mined through hundreds of cases and identified errors in 90 percent of the testimony given by experts during trial.
In a Pennsylvania court on Monday, the IP’s Strategic Litigation Unit used new science and major backtracking by the AAFS’s Bitemark Board and asked the judge to put bitemark “IDs” into the realm of palm-reading and graphology. Two members of this board testified on recent research and lack of reliable agreements amongst their colleagues about skin-patterns in human skin. These two, Drs. Cynthia Brzozsowki and Adam Freeman have led the way for changes in their organization’s attitude about it’s once hallmark position as “new science” which turned out to be nothing but personal beliefs leading to 27 wrongful convictions in the US. Their dentist opposition took notes during this hearing to record what was said. These consulting science-deniers clearly didn’t help the District Attorney much, as he argued that bitemark reliability is a settled forensics discipline and should still be relied upon to aid prosecutions and to, of all things, “protect the innocent.”
The earth is flat.
FORENSICS and LAW in FOCUS @ CSIDDS | News and Trends 