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