The Role of a Forensic Pathologist in Armed Conflict.

Wars and armed conflicts by their very nature are cruel and ruthless. In the 17th century, the Dutch jurist Hugo Grotius, widely regarded as the father of public international law, wrote in The Rights of War and Peace Book 3, Chapter 1:VI that "wars, for the attainment of their objects, it cannot be denied, must employ force and terror as their most proper agents." A forensic pathologist can play a crucial role in armed conflicts because of the unique training that he or she receives, including examination of human remains to determine both the cause and manner of death, and discussing the mechanism of death. Although the obvious role, then, would be to perform exhumation autopsies in mass killings or genocides, being a physician, a forensic pathologist is also uniquely qualified to evaluate and document physical torture, use of excessive force, and use of chemical weapons, as well as violation of medical neutrality in armed conflicts based on prevailing laws and conventions. Most of the investigations this author has conducted, including investigation of Rwanda and Bosnia genocides, violation of medical neutrality and use of excessive force in Bahrain and the Occupied West Bank and Gaza, searching for mass graves in post-Saddam Iraq, documenting mass graves in Bamiyan as well as Dash-t-Layli in Afghanistan after the defeat of the Taliban, and conducting local area capacity assessment in Libya after the fall of Colonel Gadhafi were all sponsored and logistically supported by nongovernmental organizations such as Physicians for Human Rights (USA).

Forensic bitemark identification: weak foundations, exaggerated claims.

Several forensic sciences, especially of the pattern-matching kind, are increasingly seen to lack the scientific foundation needed to justify continuing admission as trial evidence. Indeed, several have been abolished in the recent past. A likely next candidate for elimination is bitemark identification. A number of DNA exonerations have occurred in recent years for individuals convicted based on erroneous bitemark identifications. Intense scientific and legal scrutiny has resulted. An important National Academies review found little scientific support for the field. The Texas Forensic Science Commission recently recommended a moratorium on the admission of bitemark expert testimony. The California Supreme Court has a case before it that could start a national dismantling of forensic odontology. This article describes the (legal) basis for the rise of bitemark identification and the (scientific) basis for its impending fall. The article explains the general logic of forensic identification, the claims of bitemark identification, and reviews relevant empirical research on bitemark identification-highlighting both the lack of research and the lack of support provided by what research does exist. The rise and possible fall of bitemark identification evidence has broader implications-highlighting the weak scientific culture of forensic science and the law's difficulty in evaluating and responding to unreliable and unscientific evidence.