A “discrepant” view on flawed forensics leading to later exonerations – bitemarks at al.

A mighty effort by someone connected to the National Institute of Justice to blend ‘forward thinking’ about science and better crime lab management improving the reliability of criminal convictions. The author uses a blend of data that minimizes how many cases ‘clearly’ can be blamed on prosecution forensic experts.

Excuse me, but ‘clearly’ far exceeds what is claimed to exist in this opus. The bitemark discussion is a bunch of flim-flam. In multiple controlled tests, (their own), they couldn’t even reach a consensus about what a bitemark should look like. In actual casework it is clearly an “unsafe” method.



About csidds

Dr. Michael Bowers is a long time forensic consultant in the US and international court systems.
This entry was posted in forensic science reform protecting the innocent 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 )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s