Bite marks derided as poor forensic science
Previously long accepted as criminal evidence, bite marks are now facing more doubts regarding reliability. Later this month, a New York judge’s ruling could end the practice indefinitely. Since 2000, at least two dozen men convicted or charged with murder or rape based on bite marks on a victim’s flesh have been exonerated thanks to DNA testing. According to the director of strategic litigation at the New York-based Innocence Project,Chris Fabricant argues that bite-mark evidence is “the poster child of unreliable forensic science.” However, supporters of the method argue that the problems have arisen not because of a flawed method, but because of the flawed qualifications of those testifying.
Another story can be found here.
Source: Arizona Daily Star and Forensicmagazine.com
Citations:
Behrman, A. StarNet – Arizona Daily Star . Bite marks derided as poor forensic science. Retrieved June 17, 2013, from http://azstarnet.com/news/national/bite-marks-derided-as-poor-forensic-science/article_dc64cfc8-2231-5f24-949d-e76dbed2a629.html
Myers, A. Forensic Magazine . Bites Derided as Unreliable in Court. Retrieved June 17, 2013, from http://www.forensicmag.com/news/2013/06/bites-derided-unreliable-court?et_cid=3317377&et_rid=515363537&location=top#.Ub8_-fnCaSo
