Bitemark Evidence: A series of prosecution case fotos and descriptions. Many are exonerations.
Click to access bitemark-evidence-theory-vs-actual-cases1.pdf
Sent from my iPhone
The courtroom and public rhetoric of bite mark proponents clearly ignores the reality of their casework. My latest book “Forensic Testimony” reveals the disconnect between judicial rules of evidence (which indicates the courts’ expectation of scientific reliability) and the self-serving testimony of certain forensic expert witnesses regardless of the possible threat to the public.
The media attachment to this blog is a PowerPoint presentation (in .pdf) titled: Bitemark Evidence – Theory vs Actual Cases
It contains more bitemark casework showing use of this speculative form of forensic identification. See if you can tell the the “good” cases from the “bad” cases.
The unparalleled dichotomy between the legal record versus the testimony of prosecution bitemark dentists in exoneration cases such as Brewer, Brooks, Starks, Stinson, Hill, Young, Jackson, Krone is truly incredible.
See it all here: Description of Bite Mark Exonerations and Arrests
This is yet another forensic catastrophe caused by US bite mark experts. The proponents of this flawed forensic science still teach these methods to unsuspecting dentists. The “elite” of the ABFO (unrecognized by the US dental association) recently traveled to Italy (mostly past presidents of this small US forensic dental group) and continued their rant about their “good cases” and firm beliefs that bitemarks are as good as DNA. I hope the European forensic attendees (IOFOS) have done their homework on these zealots.
http://niucollegeoflaw.blogspot.com/2013/09/illinois-innocence-project-presents.html?m=1
For my international readers, a Ford Pinto (made in the 1970’s) was an American car whose gas tank filler neck had a bad tendency to break leading to explosions in automobile accidents. It was sold as a cheap but safe means of transportation but its risks outweighed its benefits. In 2004 Forbes named the Pinto in its list of “worst cars of all-time.”
The few American bite mark proponents roaming around the US should be considered the Pinto’s manufacturer, selling an idea and theories of their “helping” the criminal justice system. The risk of mis-identifying the wrong person as a criminal seems of little concern to them. Their “accidents” are more like train wrecks and have to date ruined two dozen lives of the wrongfully convicted. If I may use a third analogy: The medical medical and pharmaceutical industries would have taken any risky procedure or drug off the market by now. If they don’t, severe damage awards occur. Yet the bite mark brigade still exists in US courts. The American Dental Association does not recognize these state licensed dentists testifying in courts about their “dental science.” Court acceptance in the US dates from 1954 (State v. Doyle, Texas) relied on “recognized” dental materials and methods” in determining a biter’s identification (emphasized in another Frye jurisdiction in 1975: State v. Marx). 37 US states use a form of the Daubert standard (developed in federal court in 1993) which is a collection of Frye and a “scientific checklist.”
The best and most recent literature review (42 pages) of the fallacy of this judicial acceptance of unreliable forensic “science” is here. It also collates the thirty years of legal objections and scientific criticisms to bite mark evidence brought into trials. One direct quote from this legal treatise sums up the facts of the treatment given to bite mark dentists in criminal courts.
Why does the judicial system, acting as the protector of human rights and life and liberty of its citizens, put up with a defective product known to cause erroneous judicial outcomes? The recent acceptance in a NYC court allowed the bite mark dentists into an upcoming murder trial. The judge stated bite mark evidence comports with the established rules of evidence for the state. New York courts use the Frye standard, which got rid of lie detectors in court in 1923. This was “cutting edge” ………90 years ago….
Let’s take a short trip across the river from the Manhattan trial, and observe something about bite marks occurring in criminal court in New Jersey.
It is a also criminal hearing on bite mark evidence. But its been 19 years since the original trial. The defendant in this case is arguing new DNA evidence should exonerate him and release him from prison. The DA is vigorously objecting to the defendant’s attorney, Vanessa Potkin of the NY Innocence Project, stating that two unknown male DNA profiles taken from the victim’s body (fingernails and sexual assault kit) are insufficient to overturn the conviction.
The DA has bite mark evidence supporting the defendant’s guilt and criminality. Here is this story.
The DA’s dentist is an ABFO member and a colleague of Dr. Lowell Levine of Albany New York. In fact Dr. Levine has recently been educating police investigators in particular cases using bite mark evidence. In this link, he describes to the audience about his “adjusting” bite mark evidence due to the presence of orthodontic braces worn by the biter.
For some reason I cannot find any scientific literature on how a very qualified forensic dentist like Dr. Levine can do this. Maybe the ABFO leadership will be interested, considering their complaints about “bad apples” .
Future blog will show foto evidence from 48 bitemark cases .
The backbiting (pun intended) response by the ABFO (a forensic bite mark board recognized by the AAFS) leadership against its own membership (N=108) involved in the 24 cases of erroneous convictions and incarcerations leads everyone to wonder “who are they?” What justifies ABFO claims that the “correct methods” and a “non-biased” examiner will guarantee a medically certain outcome? Blame somebody else seems be their public strategy.
Most of this forensic drama was described in a previous @csidds blog.
In response to recent court cases in Ohio and NYC, the Innocence Project Strategic Litigation Director Chris Fabricant, compiled and submitted to courts and the public domain the attached fact list. It comes with citations and references regarding the dentist participants in these cases of erroneous bite mark outcomes.
Most of the participants held AAFS + ABFO membership at the time of the original trial testimony. Four are past…
View original post 17 more words
The backbiting (pun intended) response by the ABFO (a forensic bite mark board recognized by the AAFS) leadership against its own membership (N=108) involved in the 24 cases of erroneous convictions and incarcerations leads everyone to wonder “who are they?” What justifies ABFO claims that the “correct methods” and a “non-biased” examiner will guarantee a medically certain outcome? Blame somebody else seems be their public strategy.
Most of this forensic drama was described in a previous @csidds blog.
In response to recent court cases in Ohio and NYC, the Innocence Project Strategic Litigation Director Chris Fabricant, compiled and submitted to courts and the public domain the attached fact list. It comes with citations and references regarding the dentist participants in these cases of erroneous bite mark outcomes.
Most of the participants held AAFS + ABFO membership at the time of the original trial testimony. Four are past ABFO presidents and two are past presidents of the AAFS.
More articles on the effects of junk bite mark experts and evidence US courts.
go to http://www.bitemarks.org
The blog listed above tells the story of the effects of unvalidated bitemark opinions in the US. The major culprits are selected members of the America Board of Forensic Odontology. http://www.abfo.org
Soon @csidds will publish the actual bite mark photos from this research.
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 by leaders of the ABFO. Their opposition to review of its membership’s casework is well established and contrasts with the efforts of the FBI in reviewing their cases involving microscopic hair analysis. The dentists prefer to attack each other to put the blame on “bad apples” rather than their inadequate methods.
In early 2008 Professor Iain Pretty and myself undertook a personal review of bite mark casework I had participated in from 2000 to 2007. This research was the initial attempt to establish a relationship between the forensic “value” of the injury patterns admitted by prosecution bite mark experts and the courts’ outcomes. The link at the end will bring you to the 2008 AAFS presentation of our findings. The case categories…
View original post 425 more words
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 by leaders of the ABFO. Their opposition to review of its membership’s casework is well established and contrasts with the efforts of the FBI in reviewing their cases involving microscopic hair analysis. The dentists prefer to attack each other to put the blame on “bad apples” rather than their inadequate methods.
In early 2008 Professor Iain Pretty and myself undertook a personal review of bite mark casework I had participated in from 2000 to 2007. This research was the initial attempt to establish a relationship between the forensic “value” of the injury patterns admitted by prosecution bite mark experts and the courts’ outcomes. The link at the end will bring you to the 2008 AAFS presentation of our findings. The case categories varied
Case types included assaults, homicide, rape, and child abuse.
The first hurdle was to apply a system that could categorize the various injuries presented in the casework. Since the ABFO has no standards to quantify the forensic value of an alleged bitemark injury, this leaves the determination up to the personal opinion of each bite mark examiner. Dentists continue to argue the value of “one tooth” bite marks. (NYC). This is just one of the uncontrolled and speculative aspects of bite mark opinions that are brought to court. The other assumptions used by the ABFO in court such as “uniqueness” of each person’s teeth and the accuracy of skin to mimic a biter’s teeth were not considered in this case review. However, most of the cases probably had the prosecution expert using them to their advantage. Much like the recent admissibility hearing on a bite mark in NYC.
Professor Pretty had created such a scale system in 2007 and had tested it on police officers (in the UK) and published the results in the Journal of Forensic Sciences in 2007. He called it BMSSS (Bite Mark Severity and Significance Scale). Numerical values (named “significance” in the study) were established on a continuum of 1 through 6 (How it works: This ranges from low detail significance (1-2) to higher detail (3- 4), and then declining detail (5-6) because of deep lacerations and tissue injuries (i.e. too much damage). Dr. Pretty determined the BMSSS values for 48 cases without knowing any case information. Note: Slide 4 shows the BMSSS scale. There also are graphs that compare bite mark “significance” with 1) expert agreement 2) judicial outcome 3) case types.
Slide 13 is the kicker. The forensic value of prosecution bite marks later debunked by post-conviction DNA are the SAME as the bite mark cases without available DNA used for conviction. Both have categories and BMSSS values of 1.8 (the lower end of the BMSS). So, when a dentist uses “medical certainty” in a bite mark opinion the gatekeeper (i.e. the judge) better watch out.
The bad apple theory used by the ABFO is a “red herring” (a statement made to avoid the real facts of the case).
Who are the “bad apples” bite mark experts consider to be the cause of the bad press about their results in court? The answer may surprise you.
Pattern matching in forensic science is a major component in criminal investigations. Unfortunately, bite mark (forensic odontology) matching is the least reliable in its use to convict criminals. 24 innocent men wrongfully convicted comprise the core proof. AP Impact
Ballistics, tire tread, shoe print, fingerprints, and tool mark experts seldom, if ever, disagree in court. Dentists presenting bite evidence in court literally never agree. In fact, the cases where only a prosecution dentist testifies are prone to appellate remand or reversal if the court does not allow (usually a monetary decision) the defense to retain their own dentist to review and testify in rebuttal. Reversals also have occurred when defense attorneys have not requested their own bite mark expert.
The prosecutorial effect of…
View original post 576 more words
