Category Archives: ABFO
In Las Vegas, Embattled Forensic Experts Respond to Scandals and Flawed Convictions
Has forensics moved forward in 2 years since thus was posted by The Intercept? Retrenchment of government resistance still doesn’t recognize forensic weaknesses and forensic flim flam. Courts are very inconsistent in their “gatekeeping.” Post conviction litigation about junk forensics … Continue reading
Scientific Terminology Explained | Forensic Science in North Carolina
If you’d like to learn more about scientific terminology, Duke Law student Logan Johnson interviewed toxicologist Dr. Jay Gehlhausen about terminology that attorneys might encounter when reviewing scientific evidence. Have you ever wondered what the difference is between reproducibility and … Continue reading
Forensics: “Dentists should own identifying disaster victims from bitemarks”
Although written with the best of intentions, this journal article is a hot mess. The author mixes dental identification of human remains with “the teeth don’t lie” metaphor used by bitemarkers. This will surely get put on the bitemark reading … Continue reading
Posted in ABFO, Bite Marks, Bitemarks, junk forensic science, Uncategorized
Leave a comment
Forensics Canada: Bitemarkers run amok; Courts and DAs prefer case precedence over science.
This is a 50 page UBC Law Review narrative on the inadequacies of courts to recognize junk “forensic” experts. Battling Canadian bitemarkers leave a trail of exaggerated claims and criminal case law that is blind to scientific principles. SSRN-id3201061 … Continue reading
Forensics: regulating junk forensic expertise continues in Texas; other states lagging; from ‘Grits for Breakfast’
Top 10 junk forensic sciences challenged in Texas In the wake of the Forensic Science Commission declaring blood-spatter evidence in a 30-year old murder case “not accurate or scientifically supported,” Texas has lately again been getting deserved credit as a national leader on forensic … Continue reading
NIJ Forensics 2018: page 10 deprecates exonerations from criminal convictions aided by unvalidated methods
The US federal look on the forensic issues relating to convictions of innocent defendants is on page 10. Its mostly platitudes and clearly misdirects the reader to consider that stats used by innocence litigators are flawed. The article’s mainstays are, … Continue reading
Science versus police forensics’ “reasonable medical certainty” mythology.
For those unaware, the cop forensics use of “individualization” for pattern-matchers ain’t science. These authors explain why in simple terms for all of us. https://judicialstudies.duke.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/JUDICATURE102.1-THOMPSON-etal-1.pdf
Bias in Cop and Forensic Investigations …….
…….reads like my first 10 years of training from the bitemarkers at the ABFO. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6386/243.full
More judges and DAs bail on opportunity to exclude bitemarkers “identification” bogus opinions.
Who ever said science and law have a common ground of knowledge? Not in this case and others still pending with lawyers arguing guilt is proven by practitioners of their unsubstantiated offerings of “medical certainty.” https://www.altoonamirror.com/news/local-news/2018/05/ross-bite-mark-appeal-rejected/
Another exoneration from a bitemark conviction is pending. Court hearing next week.
John Kunco in Pennsylvania has local and Innocence Project attorneys arguing for his release on May 23. His possible exoneration could bring the number of men released from false science testimony of bitemarkers to 31 cases. http://triblive.com/local/westmoreland/13657991-74/lawyers-say-new-dna-evidence-proves-john-kunco-innocent-of-new-kensington Backstory on Kunco.
