Tag Archives: Evidence

University of Melbourne and Aalborg University study: How convincing is a Y-chromosome profile match between suspect and crime scene? Study aims to improve the validity and intelligibility of Y-chromosome evidence presented in court

4 Nov

Sarah C. P. Williams wrote in the Science article, Y Chromosome Is More Than a Sex Switch:

The small, stumpy Y chromosome—possessed by male mammals but not females, and often shrugged off as doing little more than determining the sex of a developing fetus—may impact human biology in a big way. Two independent studies have concluded that the sex chromosome, which shrank millions of years ago, retains the handful of genes that it does not by chance, but because they are key to our survival. The findings may also explain differences in disease susceptibility between men and women.
“The old textbook description says that once maleness is determined by a few Y chromosome genes and you have gonads, all other sex differences stem from there,” says geneticist Andrew Clark of Cornell University, who was not involved in either study. “These papers open up the door to a much richer and more complex way to think about the Y chromosome….” http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/04/y-chromosome-more-sex-switch

See, National Institute of Standards and Technology study: Courtroom use of ‘Likelihood Ratio’ not consistently supported by scientific reasoning approach https://wordpress.com/posts/drwilda.com and More Innocent People on Death Row Than Estimated: Study http://time.com/79572/more-innocent-people-on-death-row-than-estimated-study/

Science Daily reported in How convincing is a Y-chromosome profile match between suspect and crime scene?

David Balding of the University of Melbourne, Australia and Mikkel Andersen of Aalborg University in Denmark have developed new, open-source software that can help understand how many people in a population will match a single Y-chromosome profile detected at a crime scene, which they describe in a new study in PLOS Genetics.
Forensic analysis of Y-chromosome DNA is especially useful when a small amount of male DNA is mixed in with a large amount of female DNA, such as occurs in sexual assault cases. Explaining this evidence in court, however, is difficult because the Y chromosome passes down mostly unchanged from fathers to sons, so a single Y-chromosome profile can be shared by dozens of men in a population.
Instead of a match probability or database count, Balding and Andersen propose that courts be told about the likely number of matching males in the population, and the possible consequences of their relatedness, which is often more distant than uncle or cousin but much closer than for a random man. They also show how the distribution of matching males can be affected by database information, and suggest ways to present this information in court to make clear that Y-chromosome evidence cannot definitively identify the culprit, but can dramatically reduce the number of possible sources of the DNA. The court must then decide if it has enough other evidence to identify the suspect as the source of the Y-chromosome profile, rather than one of his matching (distant) relatives.
After the introduction of DNA profiling using non-sex chromosomes, the procedure had problems that, once addressed, made profiling a powerful tool that has revolutionized forensic science. Now, Y chromosome profiling must undergo the same process to quantify the results in a way that is valid and directly interpretable to courts. The new software presented in this study could be used to improve the accuracy of Y chromosome evidence and to increase its understanding by judges and jurors…. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/11/171103142725.htm

Citation:

How convincing is a Y-chromosome profile match between suspect and crime scene?
Study aims to improve the validity and intelligibility of Y-chromosome evidence presented in court
Date: November 3, 2017
Source: PLOS
Summary:
Scientists have developed new, open-source software that can help understand how many people in a population will match a single Y-chromosome profile detected at a crime scene.
Journal Reference:
1. Mikkel M. Andersen, David J. Balding. How convincing is a matching Y-chromosome profile? PLOS Genetics, 2017; 13 (11): e1007028 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1007028

Here is the press release:

Public Release: 3-Nov-2017
How convincing is a Y-chromosome profile match between suspect and crime scene?
Study aims to improve the validity and intelligibility of Y-chromosome evidence presented in court
PLOS
David Balding of the University of Melbourne, Australia and Mikkel Andersen of Aalborg University in Denmark have developed new, open-source software that can help understand how many people in a population will match a single Y-chromosome profile detected at a crime scene, which they describe in a new study in PLOS Genetics.
Forensic analysis of Y-chromosome DNA is especially useful when a small amount of male DNA is mixed in with a large amount of female DNA, such as occurs in sexual assault cases. Explaining this evidence in court, however, is difficult because the Y chromosome passes down mostly unchanged from fathers to sons, so a single Y-chromosome profile can be shared by dozens of men in a population.
Instead of a match probability or database count, Balding and Andersen propose that courts be told about the likely number of matching males in the population, and the possible consequences of their relatedness, which is often more distant than uncle or cousin but much closer than for a random man. They also show how the distribution of matching males can be affected by database information, and suggest ways to present this information in court to make clear that Y-chromosome evidence cannot definitively identify the culprit, but can dramatically reduce the number of possible sources of the DNA. The court must then decide if it has enough other evidence to identify the suspect as the source of the Y-chromosome profile, rather than one of his matching (distant) relatives.
After the introduction of DNA profiling using non-sex chromosomes, the procedure had problems that, once addressed, made profiling a powerful tool that has revolutionized forensic science. Now, Y chromosome profiling must undergo the same process to quantify the results in a way that is valid and directly interpretable to courts. The new software presented in this study could be used to improve the accuracy of Y chromosome evidence and to increase its understanding by judges and jurors.
David Balding adds: “We think this work is going to make a big improvement to how Y profile evidence is presented in courts. We will soon extend this work to mixtures of Y-chromosome profiles from multiple males, and also address the corresponding problem for the maternally-inherited mtDNA profiles. Our approach also allows us to include information from any relatives of the suspect whose profile is already available, and we will be working to develop that aspect.”
###
In your coverage please use this URL to provide access to the freely available article in PLOS Genetics:
http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1007028
Citation: Andersen MM, Balding DJ (2017) How convincing is a matching Y-chromosome profile? PLoS Genet 13(11): e1007028. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1007028
Image Credit: Mikkel Andersen
Image Caption: A simplified illustration of a simulated population of males, with lines indicating father-son links. The suspected source of the DNA, whose profile matches that from the crime scene, is shown in red and other males with matching Y profiles, who are often close relatives, are yellow. The dashed line separates the last three generations, those further back in time will typically be already dead or otherwise unlikely to be of interest (depending on the circumstances of the crime).
Funding: The authors wish to thank the Isaac Newton Institute for Mathematical Sciences, Cambridge UK, for support and hospitality during the programme Probability and Statistics in Forensic Science, where this paper was conceived. The programme was supported by EPSRC grant no EP/K032208/1. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Disclaimer: AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert system. https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-11/p-hci103117.php

Mathew Shaer wrote in the The False Promise of DNA Testing: The forensic technique is becoming ever more common—and ever less reliable.:

Modern forensic science is in the midst of a great reckoning. Since a series of high-profile legal challenges in the 1990s increased scrutiny of forensic evidence, a range of long-standing crime-lab methods have been deflated or outright debunked. Bite-mark analysis—a kind of dental fingerprinting that dates back to the Salem witch trials—is now widely considered unreliable; the “uniqueness and reproducibility” of ballistics testing has been called into question by the National Research Council. In 2004, the FBI was forced to issue an apology after it incorrectly connected an Oregon attorney named Brandon Mayfield to that spring’s train bombings in Madrid, on the basis of a “100 percent” match to partial fingerprints found on plastic bags containing detonator devices. Last year, the bureau admitted that it had reviewed testimony by its microscopic-hair-comparison analysts and found errors in at least 90 percent of the cases. A thorough investigation is now under way…. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/06/a-reasonable-doubt/480747/

The reliability of the evidence and the ability of a particular accused to defend against evidence presented in a court hearing is crucial to preventing the innocent from being convicted.

Where information leads to Hope. © Dr. Wilda.com

Dr. Wilda says this about that ©

Blogs by Dr. Wilda:

COMMENTS FROM AN OLD FART©
http://drwildaoldfart.wordpress.com/

Dr. Wilda Reviews ©
http://drwildareviews.wordpress.com/

Dr. Wilda ©
https://drwilda.com/

Advertisements

National Institute of Standards and Technology study: Courtroom use of ‘Likelihood Ratio’ not consistently supported by scientific reasoning approach

15 Oct

Virginia Hughes wrote in How Many People Are Wrongly Convicted? Researchers Do the Math.:

So then the next terrifying question is, geeze, how many innocent people have actually been executed?
Fortunately it’s probably not many. Innocent defendants are far more likley to have their sentenced changed to life in prison than to be executed. Still, with an error rate of 4 percent, the researchers write, “it is all but certain that several of the 1,320 defendants executed since 1977 were innocent.”
It’s impossible to say whether this 4.1 percent false conviction rate applies to defendants who never went to death row. But I’ll leave you with one last depressing thought. Of all of the people found guilty of capital murder, less than half actually get a death-penalty sentence. And when juries are determining whether to send a defendant to death row or to life in prison, surveys show that they tend to choose life sentences when they have “residual doubt” about the defendant’s guilt.
That means, then, that the rate of innocent defendants serving life in prison is higher than those on death row. “They are sentenced,” the authors write, “and then forgotten….” http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2014/04/28/how-many-people-are-wrongly-convicted-researchers-do-the-math/

See, More Innocent People on Death Row Than Estimated: Study http://time.com/79572/more-innocent-people-on-death-row-than-estimated-study/

Anders Nordgaard and Birgitta Rasmusson wrote in Law, Probability and Risk, Volume 11, Issue 4, 1 December 2012:

Abstract
The ability of the experienced forensic scientist to evaluate his or her results given the circumstances and propositions in a particular case and present this to the court in a clear and concise way is very important for the legal process. Court officials can neither be expected to be able to interpret scientific data, nor is it their task to do so (in our opinion). The duty of the court is rather to perform the ultimate evidence evaluation of all the information in the case combined, including police reports, statements from suspects and victims, witness reports forensic expert statements, etc. Without the aid of the forensic expert, valuable forensic results may be overlooked or misinterpreted in this process. The scientific framework for forensic interpretation stems from Bayesian theory. The resulting likelihood ratio, which may be expressed using a verbal or a numerical scale, compares how frequent are the obtained results given that one of the propositions holds with how frequent they are given that the other proposition holds. A common misunderstanding is that this approach must be restricted to forensic areas such as DNA evidence where extensive background information is present in the form of comprehensive databases. In this article we argue that the approach with likelihood ratios is equally applicable in areas where the results rely on scientific background data combined with the knowledge and experience of the forensic scientist. In such forensic areas the scale of the likelihood ratio may be rougher compared to a DNA case, but the information that is conveyed by the likelihood ratio may nevertheless be highly valuable for the court. https://academic.oup.com/lpr/article-abstract/11/4/303/931682/The-likelihood-ratio-as-value-of-evidence-more

See, On the interpretation of likelihood ratios in forensic science evidence: Presentation formats and the weak evidence effect. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24814330

Science Daily reported in Courtroom use of ‘Likelihood Ratio’ not consistently supported by scientific reasoning approach:

Two experts at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) are calling into question a method of presenting evidence in courtrooms, arguing that it risks allowing personal preference to creep into expert testimony and potentially distorts evidence for a jury.
The method involves the use of Likelihood Ratio (LR), a statistical tool that gives experts a shorthand way to communicate their assessment of how strongly forensic evidence, such as a fingerprint or DNA sample, can be tied to a suspect. In essence, LR allows a forensics expert to boil down a potentially complicated set of circumstances into a number — providing a pathway for experts to concisely express their conclusions based on a logical and coherent framework. LR’s proponents say it is appropriate for courtroom use; some even argue that it is the only appropriate method by which an expert should explain evidence to jurors or attorneys.
However, in a new paper published in the Journal of Research of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, statisticians Steve Lund and Hari Iyer caution that the justification for using LR in courtrooms is flawed. The justification is founded on a reasoning approach called Bayesian decision theory, which has long been used by the scientific community to create logic-based statements of probability. But Lund and Iyer argue that while Bayesian reasoning works well in personal decision making, it breaks down in situations where information must be conveyed from one person to another such as in courtroom testimony.
These findings could contribute to the discussion among forensic scientists regarding LR, which is increasingly used in criminal courts in the U.S. and Europe.
While the NIST authors stop short of stating that LR ought not to be employed whatsoever, they caution that using it as a one-size-fits-all method for describing the weight of evidence risks conclusions being driven more by unsubstantiated assumptions than by actual data. They recommend using LR only in cases where a probability-based model is warranted. Last year’s report from the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) mentions some of these situations, such as the evaluation
Bayesian reasoning is a structured way of evaluating and re-evaluating a situation as new evidence comes up. If a child who rarely eats sweets says he did not eat the last piece of blueberry pie, his older sister might initially think it unlikely that he did, but if she spies a bit of blue stain on his shirt, she might adjust that likelihood upward. Applying a rigorous version of this approach to complex forensic evidence allows an expert to come up with a logic-based numerical LR that makes sense to the expert as an individual.
The trouble arises when other people — such as jurors — are instructed to incorporate the expert’s LR into their own decision-making. An expert’s judgment often involves complicated statistical techniques that can give different LRs depending on which expert is making the judgment. As a result, one expert’s specific LR number can differ substantially from another’s.
“Two people can employ Bayesian reasoning correctly and come up with two substantially different answers,” Lund said. “Which answer should you believe, if you’re a juror?”
Viewpoints differ on the appropriateness of using LR in court. Some of these differences stem from the view that jurors primarily need a tool to help them to determine reasonable doubt, not particular degrees of certainty. To Christophe Champod, a professor of forensic science at the University of Lausanne, Switzerland, an argument over LR’s statistical purity overlooks what is most important to a jury….
The NIST authors, however, maintain that for a technique to be broadly applicable, it needs to be based on measurements that can be replicated. In this regard, LR often falls short, according to the authors.
“Our success in forensic science depends on our ability to measure well. The anticipated use of LR in the courtroom treats it like it’s a universally observable quantity, no matter who measures it,” Lund said. “But it’s not a standardized measurement. By its own definition, there is no true LR that can be shared, and the differences between any two individual LRs may be substantial.”
The NIST authors do not state that LR is always problematic; it may be suitable in situations where LR assessments from any two people would differ inconsequentially. Their paper offers a framework for making such assessments, including examples for applying them.
Ultimately, the authors contend it is important for experts to be open to other, more suitable science-based approaches rather than using LR indiscriminately. Because these other methods are still under development, the danger is that the criminal justice system could treat the matter as settled…. https://www.sciencedaily.com/news/health_medicine/

Citation:

Caution in use of courtroom evidence presentation methods urged
Courtroom use of ‘Likelihood Ratio’ not consistently supported by scientific reasoning approach
Date:
October 12, 2017
Source:
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
Summary:
Two experts are calling into question a shorthand method of presenting forensic evidence in courtrooms, arguing that it risks allowing personal preference to creep into expert testimony and potentially distorts evidence for a jury.
Journal Reference:
1. Steven P. Lund, Hari Iyer. Likelihood Ratio as Weight of Forensic Evidence: A Closer Look. Journal of Research of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, 2017; 122 DOI: 10.6028/jres.122.027

Here is the press release from NIST:

NIST Experts Urge Caution in Use of Courtroom Evidence Presentation Method
Use of ‘Likelihood Ratio’ not consistently supported by scientific reasoning approach, authors state.
October 12, 2017
Two experts at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) are calling into question a method of presenting evidence in courtrooms, arguing that it risks allowing personal preference to creep into expert testimony and potentially distorts evidence for a jury.
The method involves the use of Likelihood Ratio (LR), a statistical tool that gives experts a shorthand way to communicate their assessment of how strongly forensic evidence, such as a fingerprint or DNA sample, can be tied to a suspect. In essence, LR allows a forensics expert to boil down a potentially complicated set of circumstances into a number—providing a pathway for experts to concisely express their conclusions based on a logical and coherent framework. LR’s proponents say it is appropriate for courtroom use; some even argue that it is the only appropriate method by which an expert should explain evidence to jurors or attorneys.
However, in a new paper published in the Journal of Research of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (link is external), statisticians Steve Lund and Hari Iyer caution that the justification for using LR in courtrooms is flawed. The justification is founded on a reasoning approach called Bayesian decision theory (link is external), which has long been used by the scientific community to create logic-based statements of probability. But Lund and Iyer argue that while Bayesian reasoning works well in personal decision making, it breaks down in situations where information must be conveyed from one person to another such as in courtroom testimony.
These findings could contribute to the discussion among forensic scientists regarding LR, which is increasingly used in criminal courts in the U.S. and Europe.
While the NIST authors stop short of stating that LR ought not to be employed whatsoever, they caution that using it as a one-size-fits-all method for describing the weight of evidence risks conclusions being driven more by unsubstantiated assumptions than by actual data. They recommend using LR only in cases where a probability-based model is warranted. Last year’s report (link is external) from the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) mentions some of these situations, such as the evaluation of high-quality samples of DNA from a single source.
“We are not suggesting that LR should never be used in court, but its envisioned role as the default or exclusive way to transfer information is unjustified,” Lund said. “Bayesian theory does not support using an expert’s opinion, even when expressed numerically, as a universal weight of evidence. Among different ways of presenting information, it has not been shown that LR is most appropriate.”
Bayesian reasoning is a structured way of evaluating and re-evaluating a situation as new evidence comes up. If a child who rarely eats sweets says he did not eat the last piece of blueberry pie, his older sister might initially think it unlikely that he did, but if she spies a bit of blue stain on his shirt, she might adjust that likelihood upward. Applying a rigorous version of this approach to complex forensic evidence allows an expert to come up with a logic-based numerical LR that makes sense to the expert as an individual.
The trouble arises when other people—such as jurors—are instructed to incorporate the expert’s LR into their own decision-making. An expert’s judgment often involves complicated statistical techniques that can give different LRs depending on which expert is making the judgment. As a result, one expert’s specific LR number can differ substantially from another’s.
“Two people can employ Bayesian reasoning correctly and come up with two substantially different answers,” Lund said. “Which answer should you believe, if you’re a juror?”
In the blueberry pie example, imagine a jury had to rely on expert testimony to determine the probability that the stain came from a specific pie. Two different experts could be completely consistent with Bayesian theory, but one could testify to, say, an LR of 50 and another to an LR of 500—the difference stemming from their own statistical approaches and knowledge bases. But if jurors were to hear 50 rather than 500, it could lead them to make a different ultimate decision.
Viewpoints differ on the appropriateness of using LR in court. Some of these differences stem from the view that jurors primarily need a tool to help them to determine reasonable doubt, not particular degrees of certainty. To Christophe Champod, a professor of forensic science at the University of Lausanne, Switzerland, an argument over LR’s statistical purity overlooks what is most important to a jury.
“We’re a bit presumptuous as expert witnesses that our testimony matters that much,” Champod said. “LR could perhaps be more statistically pure in the grand scheme, but it’s not the most significant factor. Transparency is. What matters is telling the jury what the basis of our testimony is, where our data comes from, and why we judge it the way we do.”
The NIST authors, however, maintain that for a technique to be broadly applicable, it needs to be based on measurements that can be replicated. In this regard, LR often falls short, according to the authors.
“Our success in forensic science depends on our ability to measure well. The anticipated use of LR in the courtroom treats it like it’s a universally observable quantity, no matter who measures it,” Lund said. “But it’s not a standardized measurement. By its own definition, there is no true LR that can be shared, and the differences between any two individual LRs may be substantial.”
The NIST authors do not state that LR is always problematic; it may be suitable in situations where LR assessments from any two people would differ inconsequentially. Their paper offers a framework for making such assessments, including examples for applying them.
Ultimately, the authors contend it is important for experts to be open to other, more suitable science-based approaches rather than using LR indiscriminately. Because these other methods are still under development, the danger is that the criminal justice system could treat the matter as settled.
“Just because we have a tool, we should not assume it’s good enough,” Lund said. “We should continue looking for the most effective way to communicate the weight of evidence to a nonexpert audience.”
Paper: S.P. Lund and H. Iyer, Likelihood Ratio as Weight of Forensic Evidence: A Closer Look. Journal of Research of National Institute of Standards and Technology, Published online 12 October 2017. DOI: 10.6028/jres.122.027 (link is external)
Forensic Science, Mathematics & Statistics, Public safety and Standards
Media Contact
Chad Boutin
boutin@nist.gov (link sends e-mail)
(301) 975-4261
Related News
• How to Quantify the Weight of Forensic Evidence: A Lively Debate
The ability to afford to challenge evidence often determines the outcome of very serious charges.

Mathew Shaer wrote in the The False Promise of DNA Testing: The forensic technique is becoming ever more common—and ever less reliable.:

Modern forensic science is in the midst of a great reckoning. Since a series of high-profile legal challenges in the 1990s increased scrutiny of forensic evidence, a range of long-standing crime-lab methods have been deflated or outright debunked. Bite-mark analysis—a kind of dental fingerprinting that dates back to the Salem witch trials—is now widely considered unreliable; the “uniqueness and reproducibility” of ballistics testing has been called into question by the National Research Council. In 2004, the FBI was forced to issue an apology after it incorrectly connected an Oregon attorney named Brandon Mayfield to that spring’s train bombings in Madrid, on the basis of a “100 percent” match to partial fingerprints found on plastic bags containing detonator devices. Last year, the bureau admitted that it had reviewed testimony by its microscopic-hair-comparison analysts and found errors in at least 90 percent of the cases. A thorough investigation is now under way…. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/06/a-reasonable-doubt/480747/

The reliability of the evidence and the ability of a particular accused to defend against evidence presented in a court hearing is crucial to preventing the innocent from being convicted.

Where information leads to Hope. © Dr. Wilda.com

Dr. Wilda says this about that ©

Blogs by Dr. Wilda:

COMMENTS FROM AN OLD FART©
http://drwildaoldfart.wordpress.com/

Dr. Wilda Reviews ©
http://drwildareviews.wordpress.com/

Dr. Wilda ©
https://drwilda.com/

Canisius College study: Bite-mark analysis can lead to false convictions

11 Jan

Erik Eckholm wrote in the New York Times article, Mississippi Death Row Case Faults Bite-Mark Forensics:

In one of the country’s first nationally televised criminal trials, of the smirking serial murderer Ted Bundy in Florida in 1979, jurors and viewers alike were transfixed as dental experts showed how Mr. Bundy’s crooked teeth resembled a bite on a 20-year-old victim.

Mr. Bundy was found guilty and the obscure field of “forensic dentistry” won a place in the public imagination.

Since then, expert testimony matching body wounds with the dentition of the accused has played a role in hundreds of murder and rape cases, sometimes helping to put defendants on death row.

But over this same period, mounting evidence has shown that matching body wounds to a suspect’s dentition is prone to bias and unreliable.

A disputed bite-mark identification is at the center of an appeal that was filed Monday with the Mississippi Supreme Court. Eddie Lee Howard Jr., 61, has been on death row for two decades for the murder and rape of an 84-year-old woman, convicted largely because of what many experts call a far-fetched match of his teeth to purported bite wounds, discerned only after the woman’s body had been buried and exhumed.

The identification was made by Dr. Michael West, a Mississippi dentist who was sought out by prosecutors across the country in the 1980s and 1990s but whose freewheeling methods “put a huge black eye on bite-mark evidence,” in the words of Dr. Richard Souviron, a Florida-based dental expert who helped identify Mr. Bundy in 1979, in an interview last week.

Since 2000, at least 17 people convicted of murder or rape based on “expert” bite matches have been exonerated and freed, usually because DNA tests showed they had been wrongfully accused, according to research by the Innocence Project in New York. Dr. West was the expert witness in two of those cases.

In six additional cases, one involving Dr. West and one involving Dr. Souviron, indictments and arrests linked to bite-mark identifications were dropped after new evidence showed that the matches were wrong….http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/16/us/mississippi-death-row-appeal-highlights-shortcomings-of-bite-mark-identifications.html?_r=0

A Canisius College study throws further doubt on the legitimacy of Bite-mark analysis.

Science Daily reported in Bite-mark analysis can lead to false convictions, landmark research shows:

Forensic science is a vital crime-fighting tool in today’s criminal justice system. But it can also lead to false convictions, according to H. David Sheets, PhD. Landmark research by the Canisius College physics professor proves that bite-mark analysis is “far from an exact science.”

Bite-mark analysis compares the teeth of crime suspects to bite-mark patterns on victims. Historically, forensic odontologists (dentists who provide forensic dental identifications in criminal investigations and mass disasters) operate under two general guidelines when interpreting bite-mark evidence. First, that everyone’s dental impression is unique to the individual, “similar to fingerprints,” Sheets explains. Second, that human skin — the most common material on which a bite mark is inflicted — reliably records an individual’s dental impression.

Bite-mark analysis is widely accepted in criminal courts and often presented as key evidence in prosecutions. “People assume that it’s close to fingerprints in terms of accuracy,” Sheets says. “But the notions that a person’s dentition is unique or that the human skin can accurately record an individual’s bite mark have never been validated scientifically.”

Sheets and his colleagues, Mary A. Bush, DDS and Peter J. Bush, from the University at Buffalo (UB) School of Dental Medicine, sought to do just that.

Using a variety of dental impressions, they examined more than 1,000 human dentitions and studied hundreds of bite marks in cadaver skin. With the help of computer analysis and applied statistics, the team then worked to match its database of bite marks to the correct dental impressions.

“When the dental alignments were similar, it was difficult to distinguish exactly which set of teeth made which bites,” Sheets says. “That tells us that a single bite mark is not distinct enough to be linked to a specific individual. It can actually point to many different individuals.” This means that a false identification is possible, which can lead a police investigation away from the real perpetrator and toward an innocent individual.

The Canisius-UB studies are among the largest conducted on bite-mark analysis and the first to use human-skin models (rather than animal models, wax or Styrofoam). More notable is that its findings call into question criminal convictions that rested entirely on bite-mark evidence.

Since 2000, at least 25 people convicted on bite-mark evidence have been exonerated due to advances in DNA testing, according to the Innocence Project. The national organization, which works to free wrongfully convicted individuals, is now using the Canisius-UB studies to help build a case for having bite-mark evidence cast out of criminal proceedings.

“This is an example of where science can help prevent future wrongful convictions and perhaps even provide some social justice to those already convicted,” Sheets concludes….                                   http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/01/160108134949.htm

Citation:

Bite-mark analysis can lead to false convictions, landmark research shows

Date:         January 8, 2016

Source:     Canisius College

Summary:

Forensic science is a vital crime-fighting tool in today’s criminal justice system. But it can also lead to false convictions, according to an expert, whose study proves that bite-mark analysis is “far from an exact science.”

Here is the press release from Canisius College:

Landmark Research Shows Bite-Mark Analysis Can Lead to False Convictions

Findings call into question criminal convictions that rested entirely on bite-mark evidence.

Released: 8-Jan-2016 9:05 AM EST
Source Newsroom: Canisius College

Newswise — Forensic science is a vital crime-fighting tool in today’s criminal justice system. But it can also lead to false convictions, according to H. David Sheets, PhD. Landmark research by the Canisius College physics professor proves that bite-mark analysis is “far from an exact science.”

Bite-mark analysis compares the teeth of crime suspects to bite-mark patterns on victims. Historically, forensic odontologists (dentists who provide forensic dental identifications in criminal investigations and mass disasters) operate under two general guidelines when interpreting bite-mark evidence. First, that everyone’s dental impression is unique to the individual, “similar to fingerprints,” Sheets explains. Second, that human skin – the most common material on which a bite mark is inflicted – reliably records an individual’s dental impression.

Bite-mark analysis is widely accepted in criminal courts and often presented as key evidence in prosecutions. “People assume that it’s close to fingerprints in terms of accuracy,” Sheets says. “But the notions that a person’s dentition is unique or that the human skin can accurately record an individual’s bite mark have never been validated scientifically.”

Sheets and his colleagues, Mary A. Bush, DDS and Peter J. Bush, from the University at Buffalo (UB) School of Dental Medicine, sought to do just that.

Using a variety of dental impressions, they examined more than 1,000 human dentitions and studied hundreds of bite marks in cadaver skin. With the help of computer analysis and applied statistics, the team then worked to match its database of bite marks to the correct dental impressions.

“When the dental alignments were similar, it was difficult to distinguish exactly which set of teeth made which bites,” Sheets says. “That tells us that a single bite mark is not distinct enough to be linked to a specific individual. It can actually point to many different individuals.” This means that a false identification is possible, which can lead a police investigation away from the real perpetrator and toward an innocent individual.

The Canisius-UB studies are among the largest conducted on bite-mark analysis and the first to use human-skin models (rather than animal models, wax or Styrofoam). More notable is that its findings call into question criminal convictions that rested entirely on bite-mark evidence.

Since 2000, at least 25 people convicted on bite-mark evidence have been exonerated due to advances in DNA testing, according to the Innocence Project. The national organization, which works to free wrongfully convicted individuals, is now using the Canisius-UB studies to help build a case for having bite-mark evidence cast out of criminal proceedings.

“This is an example of where science can help prevent future wrongful convictions and perhaps even provide some social justice to those already convicted,” Sheets concludes.

In addition to Sheets’ research on bite-mark analysis, he is a member of the Expert Working Group on Human Factors in Handwriting Analysis. Appointed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), which provide oversight to the federal forensic community, the Expert Working Group on Handwriting Analysis is one of several discipline-specific groups charged with identifying the human factors that affect the outcomes of forensic analyses and developing best practices, based on scientific research, that will reduce the likelihood of errors in the future.

Canisius College, a Jesuit, Catholic university, offers outstanding undergraduate, graduate and professional programs distinguished by transformative learning experiences that engage students in the classroom and beyond. We foster in our students a commitment to excellence, service and leadership in a global society.

Contacts

Office Phones
  • Canisius College
  • News office:
  • 2001 Main St.
  • Buffalo NY 14208
  • United States
  • Phone news office:
  • Phone main:
  • Fax news office: 716-888-2965

 

Name   Title/Beat

Email

Phone

Eileen Herbert

Public Relations Director

Joseph Peterson, Ira Sommers, Deborah Baskin, and Donald Johnson wrote in The Role and Impact of Forensic Evidence in the Criminal Justice Process:

Conclusions & Discussion

In spite of the increased attention paid to forensic evidence over the past decade, there is little published empirical data identifying the types of evidence routinely collected, and the extent to which this evidence is submitted to and examined in forensic crime laboratories. There is even less research that describes the role and impact of such evidence on criminal justice outcomes. While the current study shows that

forensic evidence can affect case processing decisions, it is not uniform across all crimes and all evidence types; the effects of evidence vary depending upon criminal offense, variety of forensic evidence, the criminal decision level, and other characteristics of the case. The current study attempted to fill this gap in knowledge by examining the role and impact of forensic evidence on five felony crimes across five jurisdictions….

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/231977.pdf

The Canisius College study is important because it examines whether one type of forensic evidence has the validity to be used to support convictions in criminal cases.

Resources:

Bite-mark Analysis                                                                                                                   http://science.howstuffworks.com/forensic-dentistry3.htm

It literally started with a witch hunt: A history of bite mark evidence                                           https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2015/02/17/it-literally-started-with-a-witch-hunt-a-history-of-bite-mark-evidence/

Cases Where DNA Revealed that Bite Mark Analysis Led to Wrongful Arrests and Convictions                                                                                                                                 http://www.innocenceproject.org/news-events-exonerations/cases-where-dna-revealed-that-bite-mark-analysis-led-to-wrongful-arrests-and-convictions

Where information leads to Hope. © Dr. Wilda.com

Dr. Wilda says this about that ©

Blogs by Dr. Wilda:

COMMENTS FROM AN OLD FART©
http://drwildaoldfart.wordpress.com/

Dr. Wilda Reviews ©
http://drwildareviews.wordpress.com/

Dr. Wilda ©
https://drwilda.com/