Thursday, September 13, 2012

Bite mark evidence: Why it should be limited until forensic odontology is statistically and scientifically validated; Wrongful Convictions Blog;

COMMENTARY: "About bite mark evidence; forensic odontology," by Phil Locke, published by the Wrongful Convictions Blog on September 4, 2012.

GIST:" Unfortunately, there are all too many (documented) cases in which people were convicted and sent to prison based upon bite mark evidence that proved to be wrong. .........There are some within the forensic odontology community who are striving to bring statistical and scientific validation to the discipline. See my previous post on this subject here. Until such time that forensic odontology can scientifically and statistically confirm and validate its conclusions, it should not be relied upon to determine an individual identification." However, again as with most forensics, bite mark analysis can be statistically valid in excluding a suspect from consideration."

The entire commentary can be found at:


I am monitoring this case. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments.

The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at:

Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at:

Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to:

Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog.