---------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------
LINK TO THE STUDY: Published in the Journal of the California Dental Association.
------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------
PASSAGE OF THE DAY: (From 'StudyFinds' synopsis)..."The findings of this review align with previous studies suggesting that bitemark evidence is unreliable and should not be used in trials. In 2009, the National Academy of Sciences released a 300-page report on forensic science, stating that the claim that dentists could identify a perpetrator by matching their dental patterns to marks on victims’ bodies had never been supported by any scientific study. Yet, this analysis is still used in courtrooms today. A recent review by the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) also found no support for the main premises of the field: the uniqueness of human dentition at an individual level, the ability to accurately transfer this uniqueness to human skin, and the accurate capture and interpretation of identifying characteristics through analysis techniques. The researchers hope that their review will raise awareness of the unreliability of bitemark evidence, the potential issues associated with it, and the possible legal ramifications of testifying in trials based on such evidence."
--------------------------------------------------------------
POST: "'Flawed-bitemark' evidence': A new study finds that its use in court could lead to wrongful convictions - even death sentences; Thanks to 'CSIDDS - Forensics and Law in Focus' (Dr. Michael Bowers) for drawing this important study to our attention. HL)
SYNOPSIS OF THE STUDY: ('StudyFinds.')..."Using bitemark evidence during criminal trials could be sending the wrong people to prison — or worse.
A new study finds that this type of evidence seriously flawed and has contributed to wrongful convictions and death sentences in the United States.
This prevalent form of analysis presented during trials is not supported by scientific evidence, as indicated by a review of existing literature and 12 new studies.
The practice of using bitemark evidence became widespread following the 1979 trial of serial killer Ted Bundy, where this form of evidence played a significant role in the case.
However, a team from the State University of New York in Buffalo believes that this “flawed” evidence has led to at least 26 wrongful convictions and death sentences.
According to their findings, bitemarks on skin do not transfer accurately, and even minor distortions could potentially match a large number of individuals.
“In his 1979 trial, the distinct imprints of his teeth was key evidence and the national attention given to this trial put bitemark evidence on the map. The scientific community does not uphold the underlying premises that human teeth are unique and their unique features transfer to human skin,” says Mary Bush, an associate professor at the University in Buffalo and lead author of the study, in a media release.
“We find bitemark transfer to skin is not reliable and found that within a population of 1,100 people, with just 25% distortion, a significant number of the population could have created the bite. Our findings are a cautionary tale of how dangerous the consequences can be when it is relied on in trials.”
The study also revealed that there is significantly more malalignment, and thus fewer matches, in lower teeth compared to upper teeth. The researchers were able to study distortions in actual indentations left on skin by teeth.
The study cites the case of Keith Allen Harward, who served 33 years in prison for a crime he did not commit, with a bitemark on the victim’s skin being the primary evidence used in his conviction.
“Results from DNA testing proved that Harward could not have committed the crime and the real perpetrator was identified.
Harward was subsequently released from prison,” adds Prof. Bush.
In another case, Eddie Lee Howard, a Black man, was sentenced to death in 1994 for the murder of a White woman. He was convicted based on bitemark evidence and spent 26 years on death row before being exonerated.
“A new forensic opinion regarding bite marks, along with powerful alibi witnesses and DNA from the murder weapon, excluded Mr. Howard, proving his innocence,” states The Innocence Project, an organization committed to exonerating wrongly convicted individuals.
Howard was released from Mississippi’s death row in December 2020.
The findings of this review align with previous studies suggesting that bitemark evidence is unreliable and should not be used in trials.
In 2009, the National Academy of Sciences released a 300-page report on forensic science, stating that the claim that dentists could identify a perpetrator by matching their dental patterns to marks on victims’ bodies had never been supported by any scientific study.
Yet, this analysis is still used in courtrooms today.
A recent review by the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) also found no support for the main premises of the field: the uniqueness of human dentition at an individual level, the ability to accurately transfer this uniqueness to human skin, and the accurate capture and interpretation of identifying characteristics through analysis techniques.
The researchers hope that their review will raise awareness of the unreliability of bitemark evidence, the potential issues associated with it, and the possible legal ramifications of testifying in trials based on such evidence."
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The entire CSIDDS post can be read at:
studyfinds.org/bitemark-wrongful-convictions/
----------------------------------------------------
The 'StudyFinds' synopsis and link to the study can be found at:
studyfinds.org/bitemark-wrongful-convictions/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue/resource. 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;
SEE BREAKDOWN OF SOME OF THE ON-GOING INTERNATIONAL CASES (OUTSIDE OF THE CONTINENTAL USA) THAT I AM FOLLOWING ON THIS BLOG, AT THE LINK BELOW: HL
https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/120008354894645705/47049136857587929
FINAL WORD: (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases): "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices.
Lawyer Radha Natarajan;
Executive Director: New England Innocence Project;
—————————————————————————————————
FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions. They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they've exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true!
Christina Swarns: Executive Director: The Innocence Project;
------------------------------------------------------------------
YET ANOTHER FINAL WORD:
David Hammond, one of Broadwater’s attorneys who sought his exoneration, told the Syracuse Post-Standard, “Sprinkle some junk science onto a faulty identification, and it’s the perfect recipe for a wrongful conviction.”
https://deadline.com/2021/11/alice-sebold-lucky-rape-conviction-overturned-anthony-broadwater-1234880143/
