Forensic science fails in specific controversial areas of wherein “classic” investigation methods, never brought forth by the scientific method, are still posing as “business as usual.”. Think of the “matches” you hear about on TV.  Ignore DNA and Toxicology.

This is never so true than looking at the AAFS Advance Program for its Feb 2015 meeting in Orlando, FLA. There is little to nothing about forensic mistakes which led to wrongful convictions. For the bitemark “matching” clan, it is all about “moving” ahead, and don’t “look back.”  More on that below.

This failure focuses on pattern methods such as fingerprints (as is “how many matches does it take to assure a reliable “positive match” ) and bitemark “science.”

Hair comparison and bullet lead comparison s have been taken off the books as legitimate forensic evidence.

NIST/IAI/ AAFS are posing to help solve some of the gaps in legitimate testing, standards and practice. Too bad NIST setup their bitemark committee with some of the same people  presenting in Orlando.

Overview on science and its “research”  problems. These symptoms exist in forensics and are obvious. 

Below is an excellent overview on this  topic of scientific “spinning” of research results and their proclamations of success.

www.economist.com/news/leaders/21588069-scientific-research-has-changed-world-now-it-needs-change-itself-how-science-goes-wrong?fsrc=scn/tw_ec/how_science_goes_wrong

Now, onto a look at what the forensic bitemark section of the AAFS has to offer in Orlando. As expected, the match-up of topics is one-sided. It’s business as usual. No one discusses the NAS in 2009 statement that there is no underlying science to what these folks have said for 50 years. The NAS happened to use some of my papers to support their conclusions. They don’t even attempt their typical personal attacks regarding this 2014 article putting their 1st commandment of “dental uniqueness” (aka: a dental fingerprint) into the dirt forever. Here’s my blog opinion on the subject. 

If attending, please go to the Jurisprudence (legal) section, and the other true scientific disciplines ( Anthro, Criminalistics, Path/Bio and Tox ) to find topics such as error analysis, research verification, reliability testing and terminology. There is one surprise presentation at the end of this article.

This link will send you to the entire AAFS Advance Program.

COLLATION OF THE BITEMARK SESSION OF THE ODONTOLOGY SECTION AT THE 2015 ORLANDO MEETING.

8:30 a.m. – 8:45 a.m. G9 Methodology and Interests of 3D Modeling of Bitemarks

8:45 a.m. – 9:05 a.m. G10 Bitemarks From the Emergency Room to the Courtroom: The Importance of the Expert in Forensic Odontology

9:05 a.m. – 9:20 a.m. G11 An Objective, Dynamic Bitemark Overlay Technique

9:20 a.m. – 9:40 a.m. G12 Bitemark Evidence

9:55 a.m. – 10:15 a.m. G13 Paradigm Shifts on the Validity of Bitemark Evidence and the Dramatic Connection With Best Practices in Forensic Technical Analysis Via the Poma Murder in Rome: A Case Report

10:15 a.m. – 10:35 a.m. G14 Construct Validity of Bitemark Assessments Using the ABFO Bitemark Decision Tree Note: I have previously taken an opposing view that this is NOT the “science” the NAS was expecting. Take a look.

10:35 a.m. – 11:05 a.m. G15 Bitemarks: To Profile or Not to Profile — So What’s the Question?

11:30 a.m. – 1:00 p.m. G21 Chronological Evaluation of Bruising in Bitemarks and Blunt Trauma: Validation of the Nuzzolese-Neri-DiVella (NNDV) Colorimetric Scale

THEN AT THE END OF THE DAY

4:45 p.m. – 5:00 p.m. G58 The Implications of a Guilty Verdict for an Innocent Defendant

NOTE: I have retired from speaking at the AAFS meetings. Last time I showed up, I presented a paper on erroneous bitemark opinions that led to wrongful convictions. Soon after, I was sued for defamation for over $750,000. I hope this next presenter is protected.