Thread by @radleybalko

Thread: On Wednesday, a prosecutor publicly chewed me out, reprimanding me for a solid few minutes before ending her rant with "Cut the shit!" I had just given a talk at #AAFS2019, in which I said I thought the prosecutor had been recklessly misleading in a 2013 court filing. /1

The prosecutor, Manhattan ADA Melissa Mourges, later told others that I had "slandered" her. It's a pretty brazen display of entitlement, not uncommon among prosecutors. So I'm going to share the PowerPoint slide in question, provide some context, and let you decide. /2

Here's the context: This was a murder case. The state wanted to introduce bitemark evidence. The defense challenged the validity of bitemark analysis, noting, among other things, that BM evidence had been discredited in the 2009 National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report. /3

Mourges filed a long brief in response. She tried to dismiss the defense invocation of the NAS report in part by quoting from the report herself. I found her quote rather . . . selective. Remember, the issue here is whether bitemark evidence is scientifically valid. /4

Here's my slide. The black text is the portion of the NAS report that Mourges quoted in her court filing. The red text is the portion she left out.

Her quote says BM analysis is accepted by BM analysts. (Shocking!) She omits that it is rejected by just about everyone else! /5

Mourges claimed it was unfair to criticize her for this quote because she also submitted the entire NAS report into evidence. I'd argue that submitting the entire text you blatantly misrepresented in your brief doesn't excuse the fact that you misrepresented it in your brief. /6

By the way, that isn't the only misrepresentation in her brief. I noted several others in my 2015 series on bitemark analysis. /7 washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch…

It's also a bit much for Mourges to bring the outrage after a bit of public criticism. She has nastily and unfairly maligned critics of bitemark matching over the years, including whistleblower Michael Bowers and researchers Mary and Peter Bush. /8

washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch…

Incidentally, Mourges won that hearing. The judge allowed the BM evidence. But her office later withdrew the evidence in a huffy (also misleading) memo. This came after yet more embarrassing debacles for the bitemark matching field. /9 washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch…

The following year, 2017, a Penn. prosecutor used large portions of Mourges' memo -- some verbatim -- in a homicide case. The judge in that case ruled for the state, allowing bitemark evidence. /10

washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch…

Finally, I'd add that 25 people have been wrongly arrested or convicted b/c of bitemark analysis-- most recently in December, when a Texas appeals court was sharply critical of bite matching in exonerating Steven Chaney. He had served 28 years. /end

innocenceproject.org/court-vacates-…