A long read from Slate but is worth every minute. See how circumstantial evidence (the “bad man” and “liar” collar given to defendants,” and revived “memories” of eye witnesses from long ago impact defense attempts to reject the impregnable original story that a crime and double murder of two children occurred.
Thanks to Mark Godsey at the @Wrongconvblog.
I would love to see the “bitemark” police talk about in this recent case. The authorities should rely on DNA obtained from the bitemark itself not a bitemark “fingerprint.”
Previous blog on India’s bitemark expertise. This may be the same case. https://csidds.com/2015/06/27/there-are-some-problems-with-indias-forensic-system-bitemarks/
This is the long range photo of a bitemark determined so by two ABFO bitemark dentists Michael Sobel and Tom David.
Here is a color closeup on the left and a UV picture taken months later. The dentists considered the UV pic to show “unique” characteristics of just one man, the defendant John Kunco.
Here are some quotes from these well-respected members of the AAFS and ABFO.
Bitemark Evidence in the Kunco Case
The bitemark evidence in the Kunco case consisted of a photograph showing a bitemark on the shoulder of the victim. The bitemark evidence became case critical when the 40 pieces of physical forensic evidence recovered at the scene, which included hair, blood and fiber did not link to the suspect John Kunco. The authorities then consulted a board certified ABFO forensic dentist five months after the crime.
The consulting forensic dentist explained that a scale in the photograph is necessary for the bitemark comparison process. The forensic dentist recalled hearing about a technique that Dr. Michael West developed using UV photography to penetrate the skin in order to capture bruising that still exists below the skin. He believed that he might be able to “see” the old bitemark now not visible through the use of UV photography. The forensic dentist consulted a colleague and photographed the area on the shoulder with UV light. It is from this photograph 5 months after the bite to the shoulder that the intricate details of the biter’s teeth are described through “skin reading”.
Full 2011 article from Dr. David Averill’s blog
The Innocence Project first took this case on in 1993 and appealed on the basis of the novel UV photographic technique the experts used to “recapture” the bitemark 5 months later. The experts learned the technique from former ABFO member and now dis-credited forensic analyst, Dr. Michael West (see previous post). The Innocence Project used Dr. Gregory Golden as the forensic dental photography expert who testified that the UV reflectance photographic technique was unreliable. He was opposed in court by Dr. Robert Barsley who the court felt satisfactorily rebutted Dr. Golden’s testimony since some sort of marks could be seen in the UV reflectance “recaptured photograph” purported to be a bitemark. There was no discussion at the time surrounding the ability of this bitemark without details to be used to identify a specific individual. Historically this was at a time when bitemarks were being used and accepted in the courts across the country with an irrational exuberance. It was only later as DNA that has been recovered from many of these overstated and unsupported opinion bitemark cases that the reliability and validity of bitemarks have come under intense scrutiny and question by the media.
Full article from www.bitemarks.org
Also, in 2011, THE AGITATOR has further discussion on Kunco by Radley Balko.
Comments:
This comes on the heels of the Texas Forensic Science Commission’s edict last Friday that all Texan bitemark cases were to be reviewed, I suggest that Pennsylvania courts do the same.
Readers should also note that Dr. Robert Barsley (the state expert supporting the Kunco trial bitemarks experts, is now (2015) chairman of the National Commission on Forensic Science bitemark committee.
Thanks to Craig Cooley in providing valuable information in this post as he was the principal litigator in John Kunco’s appeal.
Taking a close look at why forensic tox is so complicated and takes weeks to months to complete.
Unlike other medical tests, where technicians isolate a specific compound like cholesterol, Middleberg says that you don’t always know what you’re looking for with forensic toxicology. “If you have a young person who is found dead in bed and there’s no history of drug abuse, you’re looking for the proverbial needle in a haystack,” he tells Quartz.
The author has excellent academic credentials and states unregulated proliferation of court accepted ‘digitalizing’ experts has its obvious risks. As in wrongful incarcerations and convictions. The realm of forensics (any technology or expert opinion used in the courts) “digital” evidence ranges from photography to computer and video analysis. Educators and the practitioners on these subjects have little guidance from the AAFS digital section (here promoting itself to students) and various DOJ study groups (this one is defunct and here are their published documents) which have been around since the last decade. Full article.
Here’s an example of a totally overly enhanced (“changed”) autopsy photo accepted into a TX federal court habeas corpus case as merely “improving” the injury patterns seen in an original image (according to the DA and the judge). Obvious arbitrary color changes were made and other distortions are seen in the ruler and artifacts added to the skin to produce “hidden evidence.” The digital image was made by the creator of his personally owned “imaging” program.
In this same case, a Prosecutor’s dentist then chose the perpetrator from one of these three suspects whose teeth are outlined in different colors. This image was created by me. I found found it impossible to use any of this evidence to reach a reliable opinion.
Can you see the difference?
Bitemark aided TX conviction and later execution of Humberto Leal in 2011 ignored direct appeal from the White House. The US Supreme Court id nothing mcuh. Then Governor Rick Perry rejected defense plea for claim of ineffectiveness of counsel and the trial court’s use of junk forensic dental opinion.
This is Dr. Mary and Peter Bush, from the U of Buffalo. Their recent series of research papers have given the ABFO bitemark “skin-readers” a real headache.
The great state of Texas will be taking a microscopic look at bitemarks. Texas was a hot bed of bitemark convictions and plea deals influenced by this discredited evidence. It even has a case called Coronado which a few years ago said bitemark “matching” was Aok. There also have been executions which relied on bitemark opinions to establish the perpetrator’s identity. See a case I consulted on 7 days before the inmate, Humberto Leal, was executed. Leal_Affidavit_Bowers
Let’s see if the bitemark group, the American Board of Forensic Odontology, cooperates on this review. They have always stonewalled requests for independent case reviews of their “bad” cases claiming “bad apples” were to blame. It sounds like TX is going to look at their “good” cases as well. If the ABFO ignores this latest and the first state action of this kind, then maybe the American Academy of Forensic Sciences will step up and force them. Or maybe the Attorney General of Texas will subpoena all the casework and take depositions of the bitemark experts involved.
What happens when ‘police science’ has no external oversight. Current NCFS deliberations on forensic science protecting the innocent is largely controlled by law enforcement elements and their practitioners.
We’ve reported here before about the fact that FBI agents have been giving scientifically unsupportable testimony regarding hair comparison evidence for decades. Please see Hair Analysis Evidence About to Join CBLA as “Junk Science.”
This Monday, August 17th at 10pm ET/7p PT, Al Jazeera’s Emmy Award-winning “Fault Lines” investigates how the FBI used the flawed science of microscopic hair analysis to help convict thousands of criminal defendants.
In this new episode, “Under the Microscope: The FBI Hair Cases,” Fault Lines correspondent Josh Rushing and team travel to Savannah, Georgia to meet Joseph Sledge. In 1978, Sledge was convicted of murder, partly based on FBI testimony that his hair was “microscopically alike in all respects” to hairs found at the crime scene. He was released this January, after serving 37 years in prison, when DNA testing proved the hairs used at trial were not his.
As “Fault Lines” reveals, Sledge is…
View original post 467 more words
Let me say that the following researchers are totally serious about what they do. I also surmise that they are getting funding from government-related law enforcement orgs to pursue their endeavors.
Both have established hypotheses. Here’s 1). Materials commonly found at crime scenes can be profiled for bacteria to create a “unique” link to a perpetrators feet or most likely their shoes. So, its not really “poo” that they are studying. Its bugs from the environmentalal “microbiome.” That would actually be better, since poo may contain sloughed skin cells from the animal that could be subject to DNA testing. If you find Fido’s genetic material on a suspect, then maybe there might be a provable connection between the scene. Unless the suspect is a dog walker. The microbiome arena is still hypothetical.
2) Here’s the technical one about aging fingerprints from fat. This field of investigation has been around since the 1980’s. Here is a better news release with video from Phys.org.
Thus far I haven’t seen these on CSI.
Ray Krone was arrested for the sexual assault and brutal murder of a female bartender in Phoenix, Arizona in 1991. The case rested largely on bite mark evidence on the body of the victim, 36-year-old Kim Ancona. Krone was dubbed by the media as the “snaggletooth killer.” He was found guilty and received the death penalty.
“I was called a monster, then an unremorseful killer, then sentenced to death and shackled and taken right straight to death row,” says Krone.
He vehemently maintained his innocence and fought for a retrial. In 1996 Krone was given a second chance to prove he didn’t commit the murder. Again, the same bite mark expert’s testimony portrayed him as guilty, but this time Krone’s defense team had their own bite mark experts to rebut the prosecution.
FORENSICS and LAW in FOCUS @ CSIDDS | News and Trends 