Scientists and the courtroom: Five problems that stand between them; 'Problem 1' relates to the willingness of courts to accept 'risky evidence," such as bite-mark analysis... "According to (Prof. Jules ) Epstein, problem 'number 1 in the connection between forensic science and lawyers is that the court system still permits risky evidence. He presented a slide with various quotes from lawyers about bite mark analysis, including but not limited to, “it’s a perfect match,” and “the match is one in a million.” Not surprisingly, this got a good chuckle from the forensic scientist-based audience who know that bite mark analysis is not anywhere near as reliable as, say, DNA. Epstein showed the results of a recent survey of odonatologists that asked three questions about the reliability of bite marks. The answers were split on all three questions. “They can’t even agree on their own science,” Epstein said. “But bite marks as evidence continue to be used.”

STORY: "The 5 problems that stand between scientists and the courtroom,"  by Michelle Taylor, published by Forensic Magazine on November 8, 2016.

GIST: "Speaking to a room full of forensic scientists, attorney Jules Epstein laid out five problems with forensic science—more specifically, five problems with the connection, or lack of connection, between forensic science and courtroom members. Epstein, a professor of law and the director of advocacy programs at Temple Beasley School of Law in Philadelphia, gave the opening keynote speech this morning at the sixth annual Forensics@NIST conference. Epstein did not have a scientific background when he entered law, but became more and more immersed in the field as his career forged forward. Now a member of the National Commission in Forensic Science, Epstein has worked on DNA workgroups, capital case trainings and edited multiple books on forensic evidence in the courtroom. Only 5 percent of lawyers have a forensic background, so the lawyers who use forensic analysis results in their arguments and the judges who rule based upon those arguments are often completed disconnected from the actual forensic science. “It’s a pitiful stat,” Epstein remarked. In 2009, Epstein thought he saw hope on the horizon. The National Academy of Sciences released a report titled, “Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States” that was intended to set a path forward for forensic science both in the lab and in the courtroom. Once Epstein read the report, he thought, “tomorrow is going to be different.” Unfortunately, since then, only 140 law cases mention the report, and all the same issues remain. Problem 1:  According to Epstein, problem number 1 in the connection between forensic science and lawyers is that the court system still permits risky evidence. He presented a slide with various quotes from lawyers about bite mark analysis, including but not limited to, “it’s a perfect match,” and “the match is one in a million.” Not surprisingly, this got a good chuckle from the forensic scientist-based audience who know that bite mark analysis is not anywhere near as reliable as, say, DNA. Epstein showed the results of a recent survey of odonatologists that asked three questions about the reliability of bite marks. The answers were split on all three questions. “They can’t even agree on their own science,” Epstein said. “But bite marks as evidence continue to be used.” Read on for problems 2, 3, 4, and 5.

The entire story can be found at:

http://www.forensicmag.com/news/2016/11/nist-conference-5-problems-stand-between-scientists-and-courtroom?et_cid=5665362&et_rid=979655504&type=headline&et_cid=5665362&et_rid=979655504&linkid=http%3a%2f%2fwww.forensicmag.com%2fnews%2f2016%2f11%2fnist-conference-5-problems-stand-between-scientists-and-courtroom%3fet_cid%3d5665362%26et_rid%3d%%subscriberid%%%26type%3dheadline

PUBLISHER'S NOTE:  I am monitoring this case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. 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.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html  Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy; Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog.