POST: "Forensics Canada: Bitemarkers run amok; Courts and DAs prefer case precedence over science," by Dr. Michael Bowers, on his feisty, most informative Blog 'Forensics and Law in Focus' - CSIDDS, on August 1, 2018.
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: Oh Canada! My true home strong and free. Who would believe it's also home, as Dr. Mike Bowers observes, to battling bitemarkers who leave a trail of exaggerated claims and criminal case law that is blind to scientific principles? We are not amused! PS: In a much more serious vein, if this could be the state of the law in Canada, how different will it be in other countries in the Commonwealth. A very serious concern. Bravo to Dr. Bowers for the battle he continues ot fight on behalf of all of us.
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog.
-----------------------------------------------------------
GIST: "This is a 50 page UBC Law Review narrative on the inadequacies of courts to recognize junk “forensic” experts. Battling Canadian bitemarkers leave a trail of exaggerated claims and criminal case law that is blind to scientific principles."
THE AUTHORS: "Forensic Bitemark Identification Evidence in Canada; Jason M. Chin T.C. Beirne School of Law, University of Queensland; School of Psychology, University of Queensland; D’Arcy White; University of Toronto Faculty of Law:"
ABSTRACT: "Recent reviews by peak scientific bodies have concluded that forensic bitemark identification is not a demonstrably valid science. In the United States, the practice of forensic bitemark identification has been linked to at least 14 wrongful convictions and has been the subject of considerable academic study. Much less is known about the use of forensic bitemark identification in Canadian courts. To remedy this lack of knowledge, we performed an exhaustive search of the reported Canadian case law. We found 14 cases in which courts relied on a forensic bitemark identification, a number that likely underestimates the use of this practice. Still, in the cases we found, forensic bitemark experts overstated the accuracy and reliability of their practice, and did not appear to disclose the considerable controversy in the field. Furthermore, and despite repeated directions from the Supreme Court of Canada that trial judges should exercise a robust gatekeeper role in the face of invalid science, none of the courts excluded bite mark analysis, nor expressly questioned the scientific validity of the practice. We discuss these findings and provide recommendations based on the principle of transparency."
The entire Law Revue article can be read at the link below:
Read the entire post at the link below:
https://csidds.com/2018/08/01/forensics-canada-bitemarkers-run-amok-courts-and-das-prefer-case-precedence-over-science/
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/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
