You won’t see this on CSI which only portrays forensic pathologists as working smoothly with law enforcement. This story from San Joaquin Valley (Modesto, CA) is not the only place where Sheriff Coroners run over their “employee” forensic pathologists. District Attorneys have been know to do the same thing.
Nothing explains the mind-set of the AAFS affiliated ABFO bitemark group better than this 11 page Apologia that attempts to rehab their continued use in US Criminal Courts. It has a host of mis-truths, avoidance methods, and non-science orientation. Some bullet points on these revelations. The title is incredible: Epidermis and Enamel
Insights Into Gnawing Criticisms of Human Bitemark Evidence
The following is from active AAFS and ABFO member Dr. Cynthia Brzozowski and is quite illuminating regarding some errors, inconsistencies, omissions, and bunk seen in “Epidermis and Enamel.”
The ABFO “as a group” has never addressed the wrongful convictions and the flaws of the analysts opinions in each case. They have only recognized Dr West’s cases ( see “The Cadaver King and The Country Dentist”).
Their list of wrongful bitemark-aided convicts is incorrect.
The 19 wrongful convictions cited in their editorial involved over a dozen mainstream members are mis-numbered. Other exonerations were ignored.
It took the ABFO 7 years after the 2009 NAS Report to remove “the biter” term or what is known as individualization from their Guidelines.
Backstory read: In a Landmark Decision Texas Forensic Commission Issues Moratorium on Bitemark Evidence.
Its the old story of a commercial drug testing company getting a head start in police forensics without discriminant variable testing to support its claims of a subjects’ drug use. The FBI uses this system to this day. In general, police drug testing is getting alot of criticisms these days. Of course the victims of false “positives” get the shaft. (that’s a pun, son).
https://www.wired.com/story/the-hairy-problem-with-drug-testing/
Then there is this about cocaine testing showing positive for 1 out of 10 people in a sample study in the UK.
All my forensic casework has seen attorneys asking experts about their “training and experience” relationship to rendered opinions. The AAAS (The American Association for the Advancement of Science” (The World’s Largest) calls out this permissive aspect of qualifying an expert’s “science” to be …………
“There is no scientific basis for estimating the number of individuals who might have a particular pattern of features; therefore, there is no scientific basis on which an examiner might form an expectation of whether an arrangement comes from the same source,” said Holt. “The proposed language fails to acknowledge the uncertainty that exists regarding the rarity of particular fingerprint patterns. Any expectations that an examiner asserts necessarily rest on speculation, rather than scientific evidence.”
The USDOJ “new” forensic testimony guides includes this out-dated excuse for real-life accuracy testing in the area of latent fingerprint comparisons. This is an excellent example of scientists shaking their heads regarding how behind the times the US Criminal Justice system thresholds are for scientific “facts” cloaked as “forensics.”
What is impressive: is the AAAS consistent oversight in the areas of forensics. They make the AAFS look like a bunch of itinerant practitioners.
https://www.aaas.org/news/aaas-asks-justice-department-modify-fingerprint-reporting-guidelines
Previous Forensic and Law blog on this subject.
Either this crime lab director is a cop or he was trained by one to keep his mouth shut to advantage the District Attorneys’ Office. The Orange County (Trumpland of California) DA Raukaukus has a few smooth moves of his own to get the defense attorney kicked off the case.
Of course there is a forensic “science” connection to all of this. Read how the police crime labber opined about dried semen being aged in order to support the prosecution.
A “Dodgy” Crime Lab director.
The core phrase used is “junk experts sneaking” into the courts. Bitemarks as usual, lead the way. The current USDOJ thinking is that everything is AOK. All but two states (California and Texas) do not consider the constitutional rights of a criminal defendant being affected by junk experts. The current basis in 48 states for a post-conviction appeal must prove the expert was intentionally lying or being deceitful during trial. This creates huge obstacles for the exonerated to receive compensation for being falsely convicted.
Washington Post – Radley Balko
Chicago Tribune – John Grisham
Washington Post – Police Field Drug testing – Radley Balko
The decades of criticisms about the American Board of Forensic Odontology’s (ABFO) relationship with the American Academy of Forensic Science (AAFS) has been a waste of time and effort. This US bitemark bunch gets an accreditation review each five years by another spin-off affiliate of the AAFS. The FSAB has just given another five year (good to March 1, 2023) rubber stamp to these dentists who, among its leadership, is composed of the few remaining derelict believers in the relevancy of their “skin-reading” capabilities.
Decades of forensic disasters accompanies the ABFO’s legacy. Even now, the public face of the group talks about their “science,” but their practices are akin to palm-reading or “best guesstimate” using “reasonable dental certainty.”
Note: The lapel button was distributed to the ABFO by family members of exoneree Ray Krone, BEFORE his release from Arizona prison because of DNA identified the real murderer. Ray was on death row. He speaks poorly of the ABFO during his lecture tours and lectures. Multiple ABFO members helped falsely convict him.
Inquiring minds demand a “hard look” at forensics. The link goes to a recent article that of course leads with bitemark’s flawed presence remaining in US courts.
The FSAB should reconsider. Beyond that, the other AAFS forensic “boards” should be incensed for being associated with the bitemarkers. DNA collection from bitemark deposited saliva is the only certain means of determining a biter’s identity.
Sir William Blackstone made his legal commentaries in 18th century England.
Serious old-school forensic problem exists with fingerprint experts. Their old-saw statement of “zero-error rate” is beginning to sound unrealistic to judges who have some forensic training. This case in Oregon is a good showcase regarding the creeping change within police forensics unit that deal with latent (“crime scene”) fingerprints. Here is the old school proofs used to convict a woman of burglary.
“‘In Portland, over 70 years of identifying prints, we have never [had] an erroneous or a mistake in an identification that has been out of our office,’” the Bureau’s criminalist testified in 2016 according to appeals court documents. “’ … The Portland Police Bureau has never misidentified a person.’”
That rings a bell with those of us who are battling old convictions that used bitemark analysts mistake-ridden means of “matching” human bruise to human teeth.
Wisconsin is the federal court venue where bitemark analysts are individually being sued for some of their actions in misidentifying a man who was released after 23 years in prison. The case is one among very few examples of mistaken forensic experts have been determined to have personal liability in a wrongful conviction.
The American Board of Forensic Odontology dentists being sued are named in……
Their defense to violating Stinson’s constitutional rights rests on the fact that did not intentionally falsify the bitemark evidence that was in error. Here is what the judge dissenting Stinson’s civil rights claim stated:
“Again, she argued that while the dentists’ opinions may have been gross errors in forensic analysis, they did not constitute a violation of Stinson’s due process rights unless they knew at the time they were wrong.”
Stinson’s attorneys’ arguments attack the opinion regarding the “not knowing part.”
Up to this point in history, the 20th century is gone, but it’s compendium of events regarding totalitarian use of governmental “mind control” of science and technology has continued into the 21st. Topics such as eugenics, population “cleansing” of dissidents, and skewing of democratic principles used in Nazi Germany, China, and Soviet Russia makes for chilling evidence that George Orwell’s “1984” is real.
Similarly chilling, this short-but-excellent look at the use of psychiatry by these regimes casts a strong light on similarities present in today’s governmental propaganda denying that police forensics has a robust connection with wrongful convictions.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/opinion-lifton-trump-mental-illness_us_5aa96dbce4b0600b82ff8a81
For example(s):
Forensics: Scientific American goes after (again) Trump/Sessions dumping NCFS Commission
Cures for crime lab scandals and injustice left foundering in Session’s wake
Bitemark victim Keith Harward talks to lame duck Forensic Science Commission
New Ohio exoneration casts worries about a ‘Sessions Effect’ on criminal justice
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.”
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/02/10/bite-mark-evidence-sometimes-wrong/5372523/
FORENSICS and LAW in FOCUS @ CSIDDS | News and Trends 