Using bitemarker cases to reflect on how courts should protect the innocent from junk forensic science – Some do and some don’t

bite marks 021014

Another mini-review of bitemark matching fallacies that present in the US  courts since 1954 and which contributed to dozens wrongful convictions. That number continues to increase. This article focuses on Alfred Swinton’s recent release from a Connecticut prison. It does not discuss that Alfred has to sue the state, the dentists,, the police, (DAs are immune) and other investigators in order to receive any compensation for the 18 years he spent locked up.

Besides better judge “gate-keeping, ” this next article says “bitemarks are sometimes” wrong.

This reporter misses the point that proving when bitemarks are “right” has never been studied by the bitemarkers. That doesn’t deter the dentists, however.

One bitemark big wig has this to say,

“There are hundreds and hundreds of other cases that have been tried in this country in which bite-mark evidence has led to an accurate conclusion,” said Golden. “While the Innocence Project may ignore that, the fact still remains there is a place for bite-mark evidence in the realm of forensic investigation.”

This amounts to more “psuedo-science”  bunko from this small bunch who can’t even construct successful proficiency testing, let alone perform positive validity testing for their obsolete litany of “scientific assumptions.”

About csidds

Dr. Michael Bowers is a long time forensic consultant in the US and international court systems.
This entry was posted in forensic fraud, 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: 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