FORENSICS and LAW in FOCUS @ CSIDDS | News and Trends

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 hair matching system as its focus, but erroneous bitemark cases are included in the video material.

NY Times

By now — despite the apparent infallibility of detectives from Sherlock Holmes to Lieutenant Columbo, despite the clinical genius of wizards from Dr. Quincy to Gil Grissom — it should surprise no one that forensic science is not the model of exactitude that popular culture might have us believe. The scientific rigor of entrenched forensic disciplines has been challenged for years. Still, we live in a “C.S.I.” world, and television viewers could be forgiven for assuming that laboratory techniques used to catch bad guys are unassailable. In real life, though, the soundness…

Anyone who has followed me at all on this blog must know that, as a group, prosecutors are not my favorite people. But it’s almost, kind-of not their fault. It’s just that the position has been institutionalized with so much power, and with no accountability, and with no consequences for misdeeds; any mortal human would succumb to the seductive temptations of such power. As I’ve noted several times before on this blog, Lord Acton’s words fit exactly – “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” I am sure there must be prosecutors out there who are dedicated to the mission of being a “minister of justice,” and who will work tirelessly to see true justice done, no matter the consequences or impact to their personal career.  I just haven’t come across any yet (with one, single, notable, extraordinary exception). With that being said, there has been much favorable…

This deserves a special blog post this morning.

A new protector of forensic science integrity has emerged into public view. His rhetoric is familiar and attacks the op-ed I reposted last week from two researchers involved with forensic statistics and the National Academies of Science who wrote a news piece article which garnered alot of media attention.

On his blog, and once again, legitimate forensic science reform discussion turns into personal accusations of:

“fabricated narrative constructed by frustrated defense attorneys, grant-seeking academics, and justice reform activists who’ve gone largely unchallenged.”

The author continues later with this…

“Make no mistake, the 2009 report by the National Academy of Sciences, as well as the National Commission on Forensic Science (NCFS), both referenced by Kafadar and Mazza, became institutionalized animations of the fictional narrative.”

This responding article’s author’s short article joins the micro-pantheon of forensic experts who don’t think first nor research the data before they start writing about wrongful…

Junk Science takes a hit from MS?? Incredible. Finally. There has been a very long forensic credibility battle in that state with its ex-non-certified pathologist at the epi-center. This battle includes bitemark convictions from his colleague Michael West. 

Mississippi Supreme Court overturns conviction involving Steven Hayne, and Shaken Baby Syndrome.

Bacterial profiling from public hair. Real science. Has some limitations. 

Max Houck, a lead forensic scientist at Consolidated Forensic Laboratory, a government organization based in Washington, D.C., agrees. But he also points out that it might be more difficult to use this method if there has been previous sexual contact between the victim and the subject, in the case of abusive ex-spouses, for example. “Human pubic hairs could be of potentially significant use in cases where the victim and subject have not had previous sexual contact.”

As opposed to this typical “forensic research”news release from  it’s “Creator.”

100% accurate. OMG…

There is no better judicial micro-climate than Mississippi to study the self-contradictory and illegitimate misuse of unvalidated forensic opinions in the US. This story describes dubious forensic sciences experts and their untestable methods continuing to be used in courts. No surprise that bitemark ‘matching” (still supported by the ‘elite’ AAFS) is mentioned as a dangerous forensic method.

Read this from ‘The Watch’ by WP journalist/blogger Radley Balko.