County judge thinks ‘bitemark guidelines’ show that it is still a “science’

Image result for alchemy

Here is another great example of a criminal court taking the weak way out by using the 1923 Frye Rule thereby allowing any bitemark expert who belongs to a relevant ‘scientific community’ to talk to the jury during a murder trial. The existence of written ‘guidelines’ is about all that she requires. There is no science in those guidelines. I am sure alchemists have ‘guidelines’ as well. That worked out well for them in the 12th century.

Interesting that this is a retrial from an orthodontist’s prior trial testimony that confirmed a bitemark had all the ‘highly-consistent’ hallmarks of the defendant’s teeth. His ‘new’ testimony must now be limited to an ‘inclusion’ or ‘cannot eliminate the defendant’ opinion.

Judge permits bite mark evidence

Teeth marks are not like  fingerprints. Fingerprints have a known error rate. Bitemarks have an error rate that’s through the roof which is shown in these 2 dozen exonerations. (n=27 as of 2017).

Maybe the jury will understand junk when it shows up again the second time.

They should read this about the latest bitemark exoneration. 33 years in prison, Keith Harward speaks out. 

 

 

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