Bulletin: Keith Harward: Virginia: Bite-mark expert testimony succombs to attack; The Times-Dispatch reports that DNA has proven him innocent of the 1982 rape and murder in a famous 'bite-mark' case. Reporter Frank Green; " Harward’s petition points out that even the American Board of Forensic Odontology no longer supports conclusions such as those reached in Harward’s case. “Thus, even forensic odontologists themselves would not and could not offer the kind of testimony that convicted me,” his lawyers argued in his petition.".........The evidence apparently was persuasive. In dismissing Harward’s appeal in 1988, the Virginia Court of Appeals noted: “both forensic dentists testified that all gross characteristics of spacing, width, and alignment of Harward’s teeth ‘fit on the money’ the photographs of bite marks.”...“If believed, that evidence proves that Harward murdered Jesse Perron."

"Recent DNA testing proves that a former sailor, convicted primarily on questionable bite mark evidence, is innocent of the savage 1982 rape of a Newport News woman and the murder of her husband, the man’s lawyers say. Keith Allen Harward, 59, who could have been sentenced to death, now has served 33 years of a life sentence for the murder of Jesse Perron, a shipyard welder who was bludgeoned to death with a crowbar and whose wife was subjected to an hours-long sexual assault as their three children slept in a nearby room. Lawyers with the Washington firm of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, along with the New York-based Innocence Project, filed a petition for a writ of actual innocence on March 4, citing testing performed by the Virginia Department of Forensic Science that failed to find Harward’s DNA on sperm left by the perpetrator.“Given this new scientific evidence of my innocence, no rational trier of fact would have found me guilty,” contends Harward in his petition to the Virginia Supreme Court. He is being held at the Nottoway Correctional Center in Burkeville and declined to be interviewed, referring questions to his lawyers. Harward’s case, if he’s exonerated, would further undercut the legitimacy of matching human bite marks to suspects’ teeth by forensic odontologists. The scientific basis for such comparisons has been challenged in recent years by research, and the Innocence Project says false matches have contributed to at least two dozen wrongful convictions and arrests nationwide. The DNA testing in Harward’s case, completed in January, was ordered by Newport News Circuit Court last July and was not opposed by prosecutors, according to his lawyers. Olga Akselrod, a lawyer with the Innocence Project, said Harward first contacted them in 2007 seeking DNA testing, but there was a long line ahead of him. She said his case was moved up in the queue because he was convicted primarily on bite mark evidence, a now controversial forensic technique of concern to the Innocence Project and others. Harward’s attorneys said in their petition that they have consulted with the Virginia Attorney General’s Office and will be filing an unopposed motion to stay the innocence petition so the state forensic lab can complete DNA testing on other evidence. But Akselrod said Friday that the additional testing has since been completed and, like the earlier results, is exculpatory. She said she could not comment further.........Two experts testified three decades ago that Harward’s teeth matched bite marks left on the rape victim. In 2009, a committee of the National Academy of Sciences found that bite marks on the skin will change over time and can be distorted by the elasticity of the skin, the unevenness of the surface bite, swelling and healing. “Also, some practical difficulties, such as distortions in photographs and changes over time in the dentition of suspects, may limit the accuracy of the results,” the report said. The study concluded that there was not enough research available yet on the accuracy of such comparisons and that, while bite marks might be useful in excluding suspects, “The Committee received no evidence of an existing scientific basis for identifying an individual to the exclusion of all others.” Dana Delger, a lawyer with the Innocence Project, said that, since that report, “a huge body of substantial research has come out that ... affirmatively disproves the basis for bite mark analysis. Delger said her job is to help bring about court reforms by dealing with the major causes of wrongful convictions — in other words, she said, “figuring out how we can get rid of this junk science in our courts.” She said that last month, after a six-month investigation, the Texas Forensic Science Commission recommended that bite marks not be admissible in Texas criminal cases until there is a stronger scientific basis. Harward’s petition points out that even the American Board of Forensic Odontology no longer supports conclusions such as those reached in Harward’s case. “Thus, even forensic odontologists themselves would not and could not offer the kind of testimony that convicted me,” his lawyers argued in his petition.".........The evidence apparently was persuasive. In dismissing Harward’s appeal in 1988, the Virginia Court of Appeals noted: “both forensic dentists testified that all gross characteristics of spacing, width, and alignment of Harward’s teeth ‘fit on the money’ the photographs of bite marks.” “If believed, that evidence proves that Harward murdered Jesse Perron. There exists no evidence in the record tending to prove that someone other than Harward murdered Jesse Perron. Finding the circumstantial evidence sufficient, we affirm the conviction,” the appeals court ruled. Subsequent studies and research, however, show the experts’ conclusions are nonsense, Harward’s petition contends. “These forensic dentists thus presented to the jury what appeared at the time to be conclusive evidence of my guilt, but modern objective scientific scrutiny has more recently shown that this evidence entirely lacks reliability. Specifically, since my trial, bite mark analysis has been exposed as unvalidated and unreliable,” Harward argues in his petition. The petition says that one of the dental experts who testified against Harward also testified in another Virginia murder case that he was certain to “a reasonable degree of scientific certainty” about a dental match in a 1998 slaying. As in Harward’s case, that expert’s testimony was buttressed by another odontologist only to have DNA later clear the man. Soon after the 1982 rape and murder, blood typing was done on biological evidence recovered from the scene and the rape victim. During Harward’s 1986 trial, the prosecutor argued that, while the less sophisticated testing did not include Harward as the source of biological evidence left at the scene, it did not exclude him, either. Harward’s petition, however, alleges that recently discovered state lab documents show that even the earlier blood testing excluded Harward as the person who left sperm at the scene and that evidence never was disclosed to the defense, as required." (Thanks to Mike Bowers of CSIDDS 'Forensics in Focus' for bringing this case to our attention);
http://www.richmond.com/news/article_05ab68ce-064c-58bb-b57a-211e2bb51ecd.html#.Vub6vZT5M24.twitter

See related CSIDDS post: "As is usual, these exoneration cases always lead with the DNA evidence, obtained after conviction, being argued as the foundation for “actual innocence.” “Lawyers with the Washington firm of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, along with the New York-based Innocence Project, filed a petition for a writ of actual innocence on March 4, citing testing performed by the Virginia Department of Forensic Science that failed to find Harward’s DNA on sperm left by the perpetrator.” And here are the bitemark opinions used against Harward at his conviction trial.  (taken from the above Richmond Times-Dispatch link) “Two forensic odontologists testified his teeth matched those of the bites on the rape victim. One expert testified, “with reasonable scientific certainty,” that Harward’s teeth caused the bite marks, while the other testified it was not possible that someone other than Harward could have bitten the woman.” “The evidence apparently was persuasive. In dismissing Harward’s appeal in 1988, the Virginia Court of Appeals noted: “both forensic dentists testified that all gross characteristics of spacing, width, and alignment of Harward’s teeth ‘fit on the money’ the photographs of bite marks.” Well, maybe the “fit” was is just another example of a false positive? The ABFO’s three attempts at reliability (1986, 1999, 2015 ) testing have all been failures due to dental examiner disagreement."

 http://csidds.com/2016/03/16/new-york-state-crime-lab-director-runs-into-problems-with-his-bitemark-matching-past/