STORY: "Arguments over bite marks get testy at Texas Forensic Science Commission meeting," by reporter Brandi Grissom, published by the Dallas Morning News on November 17th, 2015. (Thanks to Grits for Breakfast for drawing our attention to this story. HL);
PHOTO CAPTION: "Steven Chaney was recently released from prison after nearly 30 years behind bars after bite-mark evidence used to convict him was found faulty.
GIST: "Steven Chaney sat in a nondescript conference room, arms crossed over his chest, listening intently and quietly for hours on Monday as scientists defended the use of the very kind of evidence that sent him to prison for more than two decades. “I almost started crying,” he said. “This is really sick. They have a golden calf that they’re defending, and it’s not even about human life.” The Texas Forensic Science Commission heard presentations at the Tim Curry Criminal Justice Center from about a half-dozen scientists about how and whether bite mark analysis ought to be used in criminal cases. The New York-based Innocence Project sparked the inquiry this summer when it filed a complaint with the commission based on Chaney’s case. The Innocence Project and other critics of the practice argue that bite mark analysis has no scientific basis and should be banished from Texas courtrooms. In a meeting that at times devolved into heated exchanges, members of the American Board of Forensic Odontology fiercely defended the validity of bite mark analysis, contending that, when it is used appropriately, it is often critical in child abuse cases. “If this committee decides to declare a moratorium on bite mark analysis, children will suffer,” said dentist David Senn, a clinical assistant professor at the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio Dental School and member of the ABFO. Chaney was freed from prison in October after Dallas County prosecutors agreed that the bite mark evidence that led to his conviction for a 1987 murder was invalid. Dr. Jim Hales told a Dallas County jury that there was a “1 to a million” chance that someone other than Chaney left a bite mark on the arm of John Sweek, who had been stabbed to death. Since then, a number of scientific studies, including a 2009 report from the National Academy of Sciences, have found that such conclusions are not supported by science. The Associated Press reported in 2013 that at least 24 people had been exonerated in cases in which bite-mark evidence played a central role in the conviction. Even the American Board of Forensic Odontology, the body that certifies dentists who analyze bite marks, has decided the evidence can’t be used to draw the kind of strong conclusions that Hale made during Chaney’s trial. Dr. Adam Freeman, the ABFO president-elect, looked at Chaney in the audience and apologized that a member of his organization gave testimony that may have resulted in his wrongful conviction (Chaney hasn’t yet been fully exonerated.) “I am terribly sorry,” he said. The talk turned fiery during Monday’s meeting amid discussion of a study conducted by Freeman and Dr. Iain Pretty, who is not an ABFO member and has criticized bite mark analysis. The two asked dozens of bite mark analysts to review photographs of 100 injuries and determine whether they were bite marks. In the vast majority of cases, the analysts were unable to agree on which injuries were human bite marks on human skin. “That level of disparity is worrying,” said Pretty. The ABFO has been critical of that study and has not published its results, wanting to conduct another survey with what its members believe will be more clear instructions. Freeman said there was much political gnashing of teeth among the dentists in the organization over whether the findings were valid and ought to be published. Commission members seemed baffled that the organization hadn’t taken quick steps to inform its members about the worrisome findings and to let the legal community know of the concerns about unreliability. “It’s just a matter of ethics and professional responsibility,” said Lynn Robitaille Garcia, executive director of the Forensic Science Commission. “As an organization, there has to be some way to move the ship faster.”.........As the scientists bickered about process for change at the ABFO, Chris Fabricant, the Innocence Project’s director of strategic litigation expressed the frustration of Chaney and others in the room. “We’re talking about life and liberty at stake,” he exclaimed. “This was not published for political reasons.” While critics argued not enough scientific evidence exists to continue the use of bite mark analysis in criminal cases, dentists with the ABFO presented multiple photos of badly beaten and bitten children, contending that the evidence can help remove children from abusive situations. The commission will review the presentations from both sides and decide in the future whether to recommend the ongoing use of bite mark analysis in court rooms."
The entire story can be found at:
http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2015/11/arguments-over-bite-marks-get-testy-at-forensic-science-commission-meeting.html/
PUBLISHER'S NOTE:
