Latest News on Forensic Science and Criminal Law
-
Join 223 other subscribers
Category Archives: Bad Forensic Science
NY Times: “DNA Analysis Exposes an Inexact Forensic Science” + Bitemark Cases
For over 2 decades, the US press has used “inexact” in writing about certain forensic methods which are used to convict criminal defendants. Bitemark experts included. Here is the latest from the New York Times. It uses the debunked FBI’s … Continue reading
Press Release | Forensic Science Misconduct: A Dark and Cautionary Tale | @csidds
Don’t expect a “whodunnit” version of CSI victories in this Op-ed blog article about a darker side of the forensic sciences. It is from an author with ample forensic credentials and experience from both within and outside criminal courts of … Continue reading
Forensic Science Misconduct: A Dark Cautionary Tale @csidds
Let’s start with a quick review of a few cases related to the subject of forensic science failure and accompanying misconduct (Section 1). This involves law enforcement officers, CSIs, prosecutors and prosecutorial experts in the multiple criminal justice systems: All … Continue reading
Posted in Bad Forensic Science, criminal justice, CSI, exoneration, Exoneration costs, expert testimony, Forensic Science, junk forensic science, National FOrensic Science Commission, wrongful convictions
Tagged American Academy of Forensic Science, AMERICAN BOARD OF FORENSIC ODONTOLOGY, Forensic science, forensic science misconduct, Radley Balko, wrongful convictions
Leave a comment
Bitemarks and Wrongful Executions: Law Prof Considers the Connection
A law professor has an impressive blog post that elaborates on the dangers of bad forensic science leading to executions of innocent defendants. Read it here. He also has a few things to say about bitemark identification. A recent bitemark … Continue reading
FORENSICS | Review of questionable research on bite marks. US taxpayers’ $715,000 funded it.
In a recent post, I promised to do a review of this promised-to-be-published “paradigm proof” from a Marquette University news release which revealed a “silver bullet” forensic cure to bite marks’ spotty history. The caption for the news release is … Continue reading
Posted in AAFS, ABFO, Bad Forensic Science, Bitemarks, Forensic Science, junk forensic science, National FOrensic Science Commission, wrongful convictions
Tagged ABFO, AMERICAN BOARD OF FORENSIC ODONTOLOGY, junk science, National Institute of Justice, NIJ, waste of taxpayers' money, wrongful convictions
1 Comment
DNA vs bite mark believers. Guess which wins?
Add another exoneration to the list of 24 exons and wrongful incarcerations involving AAFS/ABFO/FSAB forensically “certified” dental bite experts. Read the Innocence Project’s news release. Read the case list and details of DNA versus bite marks in US criminal courts. … Continue reading
(CIP) California Innocence Project’s Accomplishments in 2013- DONATE!!
A Fight for Freedom in 2013 Dear CIP Supporters, With your donations and support, 2013 proved to be a very busy year at CIP… CIP client Uriah Courtney, who had served 8 years for a rape he did not … Continue reading
#Forensic Testimony: Science, Law and Expert Evidence: A Book Review
The latest review of this book is by Professor Jane Taylor, University of Newcastle, Ourimbah NSW 2011, New South Wales, Australia. The book is published by Elsevier/Academic Press and is available on Amazon.com. Forensic Testimony by C. Michael Bowers. This is a … Continue reading
#Forensic #Exoneration in NJ rejects bitemark IDs but NY still uses bitemark proofs in upcoming trial.
Why does the US judicial system, (adhering to its fragmented and often contradictory judicial opinions) and still claiming to be the protector of human rights and life and liberty of its citizens, put up with a defective product known to … Continue reading
FORENSIC TESTIMONY | Bitemark reliability testing: See the real cases |FORENSIC EVIDENCE
Originally posted on FORENSICS and LAW in FOCUS @ CSIDDS | News and Trends:
A previous blog from CSI DDS stated that poor bite mark reliability (how often experts agree) is proof of the suspect nature of the outdated methods stubbornly maintained…
