Lawyer Matthew T. Magino asks whether bite mark analysis is science or charlatanry - and tells us that, "At least 24 individuals charged or convicted, of murder or rape, based at least in part on identifying bite marks on the flesh of victims have been exonerated since 2000, according to the Innocence Project. Many of those individuals spent time behind bars. A small group of dentists belonging to the American Society of Forensic Odontologists are responsible for the proliferation of bite mark analysis. Those dentists’ findings are often key evidence in prosecutions — even though there is no scientific proof that teeth can be matched definitively to a bite into human skin. The Evening Tribune.

STORY: "Matthew T. Mangino: Bite-mark analysis — science or charlatanry," published by the Evening Tribune on March 2, 2015.  (Matthew T. Mangino is counsel with Luxenberg, Garbett, Kelly & George. His book “The Executioner’s Toll, 2010” was released by McFarland Publishing.)

GIST:  "At least 24 individuals charged or convicted, of murder or rape, based at least in part on identifying bite marks on the flesh of victims have been exonerated since 2000, according to the Innocence Project. Many of those individuals spent time behind bars. A small group of dentists belonging to the American Society of Forensic Odontologists are responsible for the proliferation of bite mark analysis. Those dentists’ findings are often key evidence in prosecutions — even though there is no scientific proof that teeth can be matched definitively to a bite into human skin. The FBI doesn’t use it, and the American Dental Association does not recognize it. Now The Washington Post is sounding the alarm in an in-depth four-part series on the legitimacy of bite-mark analysis. “Bite-mark evidence is the poster child for unreliable forensic science,” Chris Fabricant, director of strategic litigation at the New York-based Innocence Project told The Associated Press. According to the Post, there are hundreds of people in prison due to bite-mark testimony, including at least 15 on death row. In 2009, a National Academy of Sciences report on the state of forensic science in courtroom across the country was highly critical of a wide range of forensic specialties, from fingerprints to hair and fiber analysis to blood spatter and bite marks.........“More and more, experts are reconsidering their opinion not because they have pangs of guilt, but because in fact the science changes,” Laurie Levenson, a criminal law professor at Loyola Law School told The Associated Press. “You want a legal system that recognizes that reality.”"

The entire commentary can be found at:

http://www.eveningtribune.com/article/20150302/News/150309958/?Start=2

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/charlessmith

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;