Those were the words used by the Penn. Court in describing the bitemark evidence in this long running case. Kunco continues to have the right for post conviction DNA testing (some results have already excluded him) and the bitemark evidence was again reviewed – this time with two ABFO experts weighing in on the case – describing it as poor quality while Dr Tom David shifted his position but maintained that the BM evidence had value.
Further, Appellee has demonstrated that the bite mark evidence, a crucial component of the Commonwealth’s trial evidence, is problematic, if not entirely incredible. During trial in 1991, two expert odontologists testified, to a reasonable degree of dental certainty, that Appellee’s teeth made the bite mark on Seaman’s shoulder. In 2016, however, these same experts submitted affidavits recanting their prior opinions due to groundbreaking changes in ABFO guidelines in March 2016.7 One of these experts, Dr. David, testified before the PCRA court that his opinion changed from identifying Appellee as the biter to not being able to exclude Appellee—and countless other individuals in the open population—as the biter.
You can read the full transcript here below the post – but the result is a great one for those who are sceptical about the science and its application to criminal matters. Kunco – like Prante – may be another individual whose life has been ruined by the testimony of so called experts talking about so called science.[gview file=”http://www.forensicdentistryonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/2017-395-wda-2017.pdf”]