Finally all published ! Radley Balko has completed his four part series on bitemarks. Released during the AAFS 2015 meeting, they cause a considerable stir within the forensic community, not least among odonts – some of whom welcomed the overview while others felt it was an unwarranted attack.
The Balko Files - all four parts published, an open challenge to the BM community to respond.
Click To Tweet
Read all the articles here. We have a brief synposis of each below.
1. How the flawed “science” of bitemark analysis has sent innocent people to prison – read here. This first post explores the case of Gerard Richardson and provides further examples of where bitemarks have been linked to wrongful convictions. The post continues with references to the NAS report which was roundly critical of bitemarks, and concluded that more research was required in order to establish the reliability and validity of the process. The piece quotes Mike Bowers;
[quote]“I’ve watched over and over as these people take the witness stand and give testimony that isn’t just false and misleading, but that has put innocent people in prison,” Bowers says. “It’s such a corruption of justice. But for a long time people just didn’t want to hear about it.”[/quote]Balko conclues with irrefutable fact that while many have challenged bitemark evidence, the Courts have not agreed – with the science being universally accepted since the Marx case, a focus for the next instalment.
2. It literally started with a witch hunt: A history of bitemark evidence – read here. From Salem to Marx – and beyond. Balko explores the admissibility of bitemark evidence 
throughout the US. The Levine interview with Anderson Cooper is shown, with the favoured quote again being highlighted;
Further wrongful convictions are explored including those of Spence and Williams and the post inevitably leads on to Mike West and the catalogue of bitemark disasters associated with his tenure in Mississippi. The fact that the odontologist had been discredited but still testified in Court is seen as further evidence of the resilience of bitemarks to judicial scrutiny. The second part ends with the view that while the science may have begun with a witch hunt, it continues in this vain as organised odontology seeks to defend its position against increasingly vocal critics.
3. Attack of the bitemark matchers – read here. A description of, mainly, the ethics complaint against Mike Bowers. This complaint has since been dismissed by the Board of AAFS (against the recommendation of their own ethics committee) and the article cites individuals who were concerned about the use potential use of ethics complaints against individuals who speak out on issues – some of which may be contradictory to the ABFO’s view. The article also describes the Bush’s experience of presenting research that challenged the paradigm;
[quote]“We were naive going into it all,” says Mary Bush. “We thought we were providing research that would help prevent innocent people from getting convicted. We expected disagreement, but we expected polite, academic disagreement. We never expected the response to be so vitriolic.”[/quote]4. The Path forward on bitemark matching – and the rearview mirror – read here. In a play on the title of the NAS report Balko explores the potential for change and reform of bitemark analyses in his final piece. The latest change in the California law and the re-assessment of the Richard’s case must, however, give everyone some hope that the judicial system will apply appropriate levels of scrutiny to all forensic science.