Forensic Fallacies: pattern matching ‘science’ experts sounding convincing but hide a long history of faking what they say

Yes, I concur – I can name some of the leeches. Their chief concern in stating their “professional opinion”, is to sway the jury and win cases for the prosecutors who repeatedly hire the winning horse, i.e. the bitemark dentist.

FORENSICS and LAW in FOCUS @ CSIDDS | News and Trends

This article is about how forensic experts who sound convincing to juries shape their images as ‘scientific’ by misinformation and resorting to desperate measures to mislead the US judicial system. Since this article was published in early April 2015, the target of the article, the American Board of Forensic Odontology, is investigating its members about who is the “reliable source” mentioned in the article. This is an American Academy of Forensic Sciences sponsored organization. Retribution may follow, but this story is  compelling evidence of  misconduct and bad faith. I’ve used it in my Elsevier published book “Forensic Testimony: Science, Law and Forensic Evidence” as a framework for a junk science masquerading as being legitimate.

A bite mark matching advocacy Washington Post’s Raley Balko covers the ABFO’s latest failed attempt at legitimacy  Highlights added for emphasis.

View original post


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s