This is part one in a four-part series. (Radley
Balko blogs about criminal justice, the drug war and civil liberties
for The Washington Post. He is the author of the book "Rise of the
Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America's Police Forces.)
GIST: "The field of forensics has reached an important moment. In 2009, the National Academy of Sciences published a congressionally commissioned report on the state of forensic science in the courtroom. The report was highly critical of a wide range of forensic specialties, from fingerprints to hair and fiber analysis to blood spatter analysis. It found that many of the claims forensic analysts have been making in courtrooms for decades lacked any scientific foundation to back them up. Yet judges and juries have taken and continue to take those claims as foolproof science, often because the experts themselves frame them that way.
The report was particularly critical of an area of forensics loosely known as pattern matching. That area encompasses a group of largely subjective specialties in which an analyst looks at two pieces of evidence, such carpet fibers, hair fibers or marks made by tools, and simply declares based on his or her experience and expertise whether the two are a match. Bite mark analysis is also part of this group. But even within the pattern matching disciplines, the NAS report singled out bite mark matching for some especially harsh criticism. The report found “no evidence of an existing scientific basis for identifying an individual to the exclusion of all others.” The problem is that this is precisely what bite mark analysts do — and what they have been doing for decades."
The entire post can be found at:
GIST: "The field of forensics has reached an important moment. In 2009, the National Academy of Sciences published a congressionally commissioned report on the state of forensic science in the courtroom. The report was highly critical of a wide range of forensic specialties, from fingerprints to hair and fiber analysis to blood spatter analysis. It found that many of the claims forensic analysts have been making in courtrooms for decades lacked any scientific foundation to back them up. Yet judges and juries have taken and continue to take those claims as foolproof science, often because the experts themselves frame them that way.
The report was particularly critical of an area of forensics loosely known as pattern matching. That area encompasses a group of largely subjective specialties in which an analyst looks at two pieces of evidence, such carpet fibers, hair fibers or marks made by tools, and simply declares based on his or her experience and expertise whether the two are a match. Bite mark analysis is also part of this group. But even within the pattern matching disciplines, the NAS report singled out bite mark matching for some especially harsh criticism. The report found “no evidence of an existing scientific basis for identifying an individual to the exclusion of all others.” The problem is that this is precisely what bite mark analysts do — and what they have been doing for decades."
The entire post can be found at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2015/02/13/how-the-flawed-science-of-bite-mark-analysis-has-sent-innocent-people-to-jail/
See another commentary by Radley Balko: (Attack of the bite mark matchers); It details an ugly attack on Dr. Michael Bowers, a practicing dentist who has had the courage to expose the lack of scientific basis of bite mark matching - even though it has has exposed him to attack by some of his peers - and his profession's ethical regulators. I do hope that Dr. Bower's appeal succeeds - and that his shameful peers come to their senses; Dr. Bowers is author of a superb Blog called "Forensics in Focus" which I make reference to from time to time. It can be found at: http://csidds.com/.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2015/02/16/attack-of-the-bite-mark-matchers/
Despite bite mark analysis being heavily criticized by the NAS as well as scientists and legal experts, it is still used in criminal cases across the country. The Post concludes: “. . .[E]very time someone has challenged the science of bite mark matching in court since 2009, the court has ruled the other way. In short, the scientific community has declared that bite mark matching isn’t reliable and has no scientific foundation for its underlying premises, and that until and unless further testing indicates otherwise, it shouldn’t be used in the courtroom. And so far, the criminal justice system has said it doesn’t care.”
- See more at: http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Washington_Post_Series_Examines_Destructive_Path_of_Bite_Mark_Analysis.php#sthash.6zvh0c1U.dpuf
Despite
bite mark analysis being heavily criticized by the NAS as well as
scientists and legal experts, it is still used in criminal cases across
the country. The Post concludes: “. . .[E]very time someone has
challenged the science of bite mark matching in court since 2009, the
court has ruled the other way. In short, the scientific community has
declared that bite mark matching isn’t reliable and has no scientific
foundation for its underlying premises, and that until and unless
further testing indicates otherwise, it shouldn’t be used in the
courtroom. And so far, the criminal justice system has said it doesn’t
care.”
- See more at: http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Washington_Post_Series_Examines_Destructive_Path_of_Bite_Mark_Analysis.php#sthash.zORLKAn7.dpuf
- See more at: http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Washington_Post_Series_Examines_Destructive_Path_of_Bite_Mark_Analysis.php#sthash.zORLKAn7.dpuf
Despite bite mark analysis being heavily criticized by the NAS as well as scientists and legal experts, it is still used in criminal cases across the country. The Post concludes: “. . .[E]very time someone has challenged the science of bite mark matching in court since 2009, the court has ruled the other way. In short, the scientific community has declared that bite mark matching isn’t reliable and has no scientific foundation for its underlying premises, and that until and unless further testing indicates otherwise, it shouldn’t be used in the courtroom. And so far, the criminal justice system has said it doesn’t care.”
- See more at: http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Washington_Post_Series_Examines_Destructive_Path_of_Bite_Mark_Analysis.php#sthash.6zvh0c1U.dpuf
http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Washington_Post_Series_Examines_Destructive_Path_of_Bite_Mark_Analysis.php
PUBLISHER'S NOTE:
Dear Reader. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog. We are following this case.
I have added a search box for content in this blog which now encompasses several thousand posts. The search box is located near the bottom of the screen just above the list of links. I am confident that this powerful search tool provided by "Blogger" will help our readers and myself get more out of the site.
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:
http://www.thestar.com/topic/
Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at:
http://smithforensic.blogspot.ca/2013/12/the-charles-smith-award-presented-to_28.html
I look forward to hearing from readers at:
hlevy15@gmail.com.
Harold Levy; Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog;
Despite
bite mark analysis being heavily criticized by the NAS as well as
scientists and legal experts, it is still used in criminal cases across
the country. The Post concludes: “. . .[E]very time someone has
challenged the science of bite mark matching in court since 2009, the
court has ruled the other way. In short, the scientific community has
declared that bite mark matching isn’t reliable and has no scientific
foundation for its underlying premises, and that until and unless
further testing indicates otherwise, it shouldn’t be used in the
courtroom. And so far, the criminal justice system has said it doesn’t
care.”
- See more at: http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Washington_Post_Series_Examines_Destructive_Path_of_Bite_Mark_Analysis.php#sthash.zORLKAn7.dpuf
- See more at: http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Washington_Post_Series_Examines_Destructive_Path_of_Bite_Mark_Analysis.php#sthash.zORLKAn7.dpuf
