Forensic science is not immune to the need for retesting and consideration of its’ flawed methods -Anon
The number of exonerations in the US is probably going to increase with the addition of ‘new DNA technology’ evidence recovered from a bitemark used to ‘match’ teeth of Alfred Swinton in his Connecticut 20o1 conviction. This case includes another bitemark expert recanting his original testimony. This is his second time. The dentist’s first time is Keith Harvard who was released recently on the same basis of forensic flaws in bitemark pattern matching.
Connecticut has its share of bitemark identification flaws. The Kunco bitemark has a dentist still authenticating his past opinions of ” a match” with his reluctant current opinion of “cannot exclude” via tooth marks, decades after the original trial. The bitemarkers cohort are all on the faculty at the University of Tennessee Knoxville and are currently teaching newbie dentists about bitemark pattern comparisons this July. See the bitemark course syllabus here. Look at Wednesday pm. All it now says is ‘Bitemarks’ for the entire afternoon. It originally was described as recognition, documentation and ‘bitemark comparisons.”
It only costs $2700 plus expenses. Too bad this course has the esteemed UT faculty of Anthropology (including it’s famed Professor Bill Bass, the original ‘Body Farm innovator’) involved with this bunch. Dental and Anthropological identification of individuals and mass disaster (natural and man made) victims are too important to be used as a vehicle for these few desperate dentists to claim academic legitimacy.