Journal of Law and the Biosciences · 2016 · 38 citations · 2 references
In recent years, several forms of previously accepted forensic science have come under scrutiny as unreliable or simply unsound. 1 For instance, the science of arson investigation is among 'the most prominent current example[s] of shifted science potentially calling into question hundreds or thousands of convictions that occurred over the past few decades'. 2 The National Academies of Science ('NAS'), in a 2009 report on forensic science, observed that there is a paucity of research supporting forensic arson investigation. 3 The report also concluded that 'many of the rules of thumb that are typically assumed to indicate that an accelerant was used (e.g., 'alligatoring' of wood, specific char patterns) have been shown not to be true'. 4 Bite mark analysis raised similar concerns. The NAS report observed that '[a]lthough the majority of forensic odontologists are satisfied that bite marks can demonstrate sufficient detail for positive identification, no scientific studies support this assessment, and no large population studies have been conducted. In numerous instances, experts diverge widely in their evaluations of the same bite mark evidence'. More recently, the Texas Forensic Science Commission recommended a moratorium on bite mark evidence in criminal trials.
2