Forensic bitemark identification: weak foundations, exaggerated claims

@inproceedings{Saks2016ForensicBI,
  title={Forensic bitemark identification: weak foundations, exaggerated claims},
  author={Michael Saks and Thomas D. Albright and Thomas L. Bohan and Barbara E Bierer and Charles Michael Bowers and Mary A. Bush and Peter J Bush and Arturo Casadevall and Simon A. Cole and Michele L. B. Denton and Shari Seidman Diamond and Rachel Dioso-Villa and Jules Epstein and David L. Faigman and Lisa Faigman and Stephen E. Fienberg and Brandon L. Garrett and Paul C. Giannelli and Henry T. Greely and Edward J. Imwinkelried and Allan Jamieson and Karen Kafadar and Jerome P. Kassirer and Jonathan K{\"o}hler and David Korn and Jennifer L. Mnookin and Alan B. Morrison and Erin Murphy and Nizam Peerwani and Joseph L. Peterson and D. Michael Risinger and George F. Sensabaugh and Clifford H. Spiegelman and Hal S Stern and William C. Thompson and James L. Wayman and Sandy Zabell and Ross E. Zumwalt},
  booktitle={Journal of law and the biosciences},
  year={2016}
}
Several forensic sciences, especially of the pattern-matching kind, are increasingly seen to lack the scientific foundation needed to justify continuing admission as trial evidence. Indeed, several have been abolished in the recent past. A likely next candidate for elimination is bitemark identification. A number of DNA exonerations have occurred in recent years for individuals convicted based on erroneous bitemark identifications. Intense scientific and legal scrutiny has resulted. An… CONTINUE READING
Recent Discussions
This paper has been referenced on Twitter 38 times over the past 90 days. VIEW TWEETS

From This Paper

Figures, tables, and topics from this paper.

Citations

Publications citing this paper.

Similar Papers

Loading similar papers…