POST: "Bite-mark recomendation raises tough questions," by Marcene Robinson, published by UB News on February 22, 2016.
PHOTO CAPTION: "Research
by Peter and Mary Bush helped lay the foundation for a landmark recommendation
by the Texas Forensic Science Commission to ban bite-mark evidence from being
used in the courtroom. "
GIST: "Peter
and Mary Bush, forensic scientists in the School of Dental Medicine, had much
to celebrate during the past week. Their
work — several studies that found the science behind bite-mark analysis unsound
— helped lay the foundation for a landmark recommendation by the Texas Forensic
Science Commission to ban the form of evidence from being used in the
courtroom. A
recommendation that will “start a domino effect for much needed reform,” says
Peter Bush, director of the UB South Campus Instrument Center. The
second domino may fall as soon as this week at the 68th Annual Scientific
Meeting for the American Academy of Forensic Sciences (AAFS). The
meeting will draw forensic experts from across the nation and all eyes will be
on forensic dentistry, says Peter Bush, who is attending the meeting being held
Feb. 22-27 in Las Vegas. Although
the Texas commission sided against using bite-marks as evidence, the battle is
far from over across the nation’s 49 other states. The
AAFS meeting will include several presentations from forensic dentistry experts
that will argue for the continued use of bite-mark analysis. The
Forensic Science Accreditation Board, responsible for certifying members of the
American Board of Forensic Odontology, also will meet to review its
certification requirements, which call for forensic dentists to have testified
on bite-marks in at least seven criminal cases. And
despite the decision in Texas, judges — who decide on a case-by-case basis what
evidence they deem admissible — still retain the power to allow the
now-controversial bite-mark evidence in court. “Bite-mark
evidence is going to be much more difficult to litigate,” says Peter Bush. “The
courts are going to re-examine past cases, but the question is, going forward,
whether the judges will heed the recommendation and refuse to admit bite-mark
evidence in future cases.”.........“With
no scientific basis supporting this technique, the analysis can amount to no
more than subjective guessing,” Mary Bush says. “As such, it should be no surprise to see that a number of tragic errors have resulted.” At
least 24 people convicted with bite-mark evidence were later exonerated after
DNA testing, according to the Innocence Project, an organization committed to
exonerating wrongly convicted people. The
fates of hundreds of men and women, including many on death row, still hang in
the balance.""
The entire post can be found at:
http://www.buffalo.edu/ubreporter/stories.host.html/content/shared/university/news/ub-reporter-articles/stories/2016/02/bite_mark_followup.detail.html
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/
