The heat continues to be turned up on bitemark evidence. You can hear the comments made by Jo Handelsman, the assistant director of the White Office of Science and Technology Policy, when she told the conference this week that bite-mark evidence lacks scientific foundation, according to those who attended the “International Symposium on Forensic Science Error Management,” hosted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology. The remarks were well-received, said Alicia Carriquiry, the head of the Center for Statistics and Applications in Forensic Evidence at Iowa State University, who was there. She said she was thrilled to hear the White House stance – since bite marks have been a “particularly troubling” discipline, in terms of the science.
Its damning and has once again led to a series of blogger posts calling for the end of the use of bitemarks in criminal cases. No formal response to these comments from the ABFO or other forensic organisations but they must be feeling the pressure now. No longer can they dismiss claims by opponents as those reflecting the alternate agenda of the innocence movement, but, instead, main stream scientists and commentators are beginning to express objective concern.