Death sentences: A trail of dubious contributions to justice: questionable and in some cases, erroneous bitemark opinions.

FORENSICS and LAW in FOCUS @ CSIDDS | News and Trends

I have reported on this subject before, as the continued acceptance of the bitemark id “pseudoscience” in US courts still allows this prejudicial type of prosecutorial expert opinion to be considered “relevant evidence.”

Continuing on this topic, my experience as a defense expert in three specific cases that involved sentences of death and execution deserves presentation about the tangled web of the history of “bitemark expertise” now under review by the National Forensic Science Commission and its OSAC (subcommittees).

THINGS IN COMMON

1. All cases involved AAFS/ABFO dentists as prosecutorial experts. I was involved in litigation after convictions had been achieved at trial. Two were past presidents of the ABFO, one of whom was also a past AAFS president. I was an AAFS/ABFO members during my participation. I resigned from the ABFO a few years later in 2012

2. All three cases were charged as capital murder which invoked the death penalty.

3. All cases…

View original post 612 more words

Published by G. Sherwood

This project has been ongoing for over 10 years and it required many breaks and gigs and gigs of research. The subject isn't easy but it is important in my view. Thanks for stopping by. Feel free to drop me a line. coldercase.com@gmail.com

Leave a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: