Anti-PCAST District Attorney Says Bitemark Analysis Opponents Are “Flawed”

Non-science Prosecutors like to exaggerate quite a lot when their past convictions used junk science. Their understanding of “science” really means that the old methods still work. Just like the “Flat-Earthers” from the Middle Ages.

FORENSICS and LAW in FOCUS @ CSIDDS | News and Trends

Image result for bullshit

This National DA Assoc president works in San Bernardino County, among other things a place where bitemarks helped put an innocent Bill Richards in prison for 23 years.


Ramos (campaigning for California’s Attorney General post and pro death penalty) has a sterling opinion about bitemark “matching.” Here is his and his org’s “final” 7 page response to the President’s Science Council’s Report. The part about teeth is excerpted below in italics.

As a colleague of mine puts it (in bold):

The NDAA letter to PCAST grossly overstates the success of testimony against University of Buffalo bitemark studies. Never were the studies “thoroughly discredited in court.” Almost similar to saying the possibility of someone else having the same dentition as “one in a million”. The rest of  the commentary is also interesting, including the use of specialized computer programs ( Adobe Photoshop? ) to perform analysis.

Forensic Odontology

Forensic dentists…

View original post 350 more words

About csidds

Dr. Michael Bowers is a long time forensic consultant in the US and international court systems.
This entry was posted in AAFS, ABFO, Bite Marks, costs of wrongful convictions, forensic science reform protecting the innocence, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your 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 )

Connecting to %s