Bitemark work is speculative, at best. It is Circumstantial evidence. If it comports itself otherwise, it is fraudulent. Swab “the bite”, obtain salivary byproducts, follow Chain of Custody Run it through CODIS. Who cares who you , Forensic Odontologist, can “exclude” from a sample of potential suspects, why speculate at all? Nail it with DNA. That is State of the Art Forensic Science.
Progress is being made towards Forensic Science Reform. It has taken 5 years to get coordinated (but preliminary) recommendations from organized forensic practitioners since the 2009 NAS Report on “Strengthening Forensics Sciences.” The NAS slammed a fistful of long accepted forensic “sciences.” (e.g.: bitemark identification and others.)
The National Commission on Forensic Science just issued its first “work product” in dealing with the bad habits of some forensic practitioners. Phil Locke at the Wrongful Conviction Blog posted comments today that will give you an overview.
Phil has been dedicated in exposing problems in court accepted forensic “science.” Some folks within forensic organizations, like the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, have become aware that their previous “acceptance” of the NAS report was little more than posing. Now the NCFS is composed of many AAFS members.
Here’s a quote from Phil’s excellent blog-post giving some background reasons for the 5 year delay.
“Not surprisingly, the NAS report…
View original post 172 more words