1. A Color Atlas And Text Of Clinical Medicine
2. Bite Mark Evidence A Color Atlas And Text 2nd Edition Book

Critics describe forensic dentists' management of bitemark evidence as junk science with poor sensitivity and specificity and state that linkages to a biter are unfounded. Those vocal critics, supported by certain media, characterize odontologists' previous errors as egregious and petition government agencies to render bitemark evidence inadmissible. Odontologists acknowledge that some practitioners have made past mistakes. However, it does not logically follow that the errors of a few identify a systemic failure of bitemark analysis. Scrutiny of the contentious cases shows that most occurred 20 to 40 years ago.

Since then, research has been ongoing and more conservative guidelines, standards, and terminology have been adopted so that past errors are no longer reflective of current safeguards. The authors recommend a comprehensive root analysis of problem cases to be used to determine all the factors that contributed to those previous problems.

The legal community also shares responsibility for some of the past erroneous convictions. Currently, most proffered bitemark cases referred to odontologists do not reach courts because those forensic dentists dismiss them as unacceptable or insufficient for analysis.

Most bitemark evidence cases have been properly managed by odontologists. Bitemark evidence and testimony remain relevant and have made significant contributions in the justice system. In addition to human identification work in individual and multiple fatality cases, age assessment activities that assist in immigration and human trafficking cases, and the expertise to recognize and intervene in human abuse cases, forensic dentists (ie, odontologists) are sometimes asked to analyze patterns or patterned injuries that may be bitemarks. Reports of errors made by odontologists in bitemark cases in the 1980s and 1990s have been the recent focus of aggressive and disparaging criticisms. The critics have been persuasive through forcefulness and repetition. Some journalists have been enlisted to further bolster critics' arguments and influence others to believe all bitemark analysis is without merit.

Those influenced include the public, some governmental agencies, and members of the legal profession. The critics refer to issues related to bitemark evidence in the 2009 National Academy of Sciences report. Those issues have been widely reported and debated. However, the valid issues raised in the report have been largely addressed by organized forensic odontology. Bitemark evidence critics ignore the progress made by changes in standards, terminology, and the steps to inhibit bias.As members of the forensic odontology community, the authors acknowledge that mistakes have been made in the past. However, analysis of the facts and contexts of the problem cases indicate that many other factors were also at play. An assessment of the issues, a background context, a summary of actions taken, and additional proposed solutions are presented here.Wrongful convictions are dreadful occurrences both for those convicted and for the justice system, and they leave the actual wrongdoer free potentially to offend again.

When bitemark evidence is connected to a wrongful conviction, forensic odontologists are deeply concerned and motivated to work to prevent future failures, particularly if the cause was even partially from erroneous or misleading testimony. As a result, odontologists who deal routinely with bitemark evidence and understand its limitations have adopted a conservative approach, including developing quality assurance procedures to limit potential biases and to eliminate false or exaggerated conclusions. Understanding the causes and attempting to clarify where, how, and why the wrongful convictions occurred is necessary to be able to take measures to reduce the likelihood of such failures from happening again. THE CRITICSCritics allege that odontologists misstate the uniqueness of the human dentition, and underestimate or ignore the unpredictable distortions of tooth marks on skin.

Because of these observations, the critics characterize bitemark evidence as unreliable with poor sensitivity and specificity. They proclaim that all conclusions drawn from it must therefore be unfounded.The critics include some individuals from the Innocence Project, Inc and its affiliates in the innocence network (hereafter referred to as the Innocence Project IP), some members of the media, some but not all criminal defense attorneys, and some from within forensic science and forensic odontology. Most of the comments expressed by critics against expert opinions in bitemark evidence disparage the discipline to the point that a reasonable person might be convinced to distrust or totally disregard all opinions and conclusions of all members of the discipline. Interestingly, some trial attorneys from the IP may stand to gain financially from reviewing various cases being conducted ostensibly to determine if forensic methods are questionable, unreliable, or have resulted in wrongful convictions. This concern raises questions of potential conflicts of interest at best and the likelihood of an agenda-driven disingenuous attack at worst.The IP, a major critic, reports that 351 persons have been exonerated using DNA evidence.

However, only a small fraction of these cases included bitemark evidence. The IP variously reports that 27 or 28 cases, approximately 8% of their total, included bitemark evidence and resulted in later exonerations. However, not all of these cases were actual exonerations and not all of the exonerations were based on DNA. Some were exonerated at least partially based on the postconviction work of specialist odontologists with extensive bitemark experience unrelated to the IP or by dentists who were specifically sought out by the IP for assistance. From this, the value of odontologists' testimony seems to be understood and appreciated. On one hand, the IP attorneys criticize the evidence and the specialists, whereas on the other hand they choose to use bitemark specialists.The IP reported that about half of the cases involved the use of what it labeled as improper or nonvalidated forensic science.

Topping their list of problem disciplines was serology, followed by microscopic and toxicological hair analysis, and forensic biology (ie, DNA evidence), which together accounted for approximately 55% of all wrongful convictions. It is remarkable that the IP continues to aggressively focus on bitemark evidence and obsessively seeks to eliminate it from United States courtrooms when based on its own statistics it is much more likely that a trial with DNA evidence will result in a wrongful conviction and subsequent exoneration than a trial with bitemark evidence.The 27 wrongful conviction cases frequently reported in the media as of August 2017 included the cases of 7 individuals who were not wrongfully convicted at all. These 7 persons were investigated or accused but never went to trial precluding the possibility of either rightful or wrongful conviction. AN ODONTOLOGY RESPONSEForensic odontology, like clinical dentistry and clinical medicine is an applied science. It derives from well-founded maxims that evolve over time as more knowledge is gained.

In applied science, opinions are formed by humans and are subject to potential human error. Decision making is a cognitive process subject to cognitive (observer effect) bias.

This is unintentional and outside of awareness. Most disciplines in forensic sciences and medicine are vulnerable to this bias, yet the courts accept and rely on opinion testimony from witnesses deemed to possess adequate knowledge, skill, training, and experience.

When a competent and responsible forensic odontologist offers an opinion at trial, it is just that. It is an opinion drawn from accumulated knowledge and experience with adherence to accepted current principles. Just as odontologists should not follow 30-year-old standards, they should not be judged today on previous noncurrent standards. Many of the wrongful conviction bitemark cases were analyzed using lower quality and sometimes unscaled autopsy and/or crime scene photographs. Reliance upon low-quality photographic evidence as the sole basis of bitemark evidence analysis and comparison would simply not be tolerated today.As with all life sciences, forensic odontology is self-correcting; as problems are encountered, they are addressed. Even before the criticisms about erroneous convictions involving bitemark evidence became publicly known, discipline leaders recognized the need to modify policies and procedures, standards, and guidelines.

If some critics of bitemarks had conducted their research without preconception, they likely would have discovered that many of the wrongful convictions featured departures from the accepted standards of practice that existed at the time. Forensic odontology training and the literature today promote procedures designed to prevent the errors of the past.Means for improving reliability of bitemark analysis methods and formulating opinions are being assessed. When methods or techniques that increase reliability are found and validated, they are incorporated as appropriate. The American Board of Forensic Odontology (ABFO) has taken the lead role in this. The ABFO leaders are committed to ongoing discussion to promote appropriate evolution of the field. A Summary of the Factors Influencing the Convictions of 21 Individuals in 19 Cases With 2 Individuals as Codefendants in 2 CasesFinally, and crucially, is the matter of who actually makes the determination of whether a defendant is guilty or not guilty. All convictions, including those that later are shown to be wrongful convictions, are determinations made by a judge or jury based upon the evidence and how it was presented at trial.The legal community has an obligation to safeguard against invalid and unreliable testimony.

The obligation to provide adequate legal representation of defendants should lead attorneys toward engaging in rigorous qualification of experts, and encouraging the involvement of those that seek independent verification of expert opinions. Judges should take steps to improve their gatekeeping skills and engage in training to improve their understanding of forensic evidence that they admit or exclude. Surveys of exoneration cases indicate that several cases involved either nonspecialists, nonforensic specialists, or noncertified forensic dentists who nevertheless were qualified by the court as an expert witness in bitemark evidence and who gave highly specialized opinions.

Incredibly, some witnesses have been qualified as bitemark experts having never completed an actual bitemark case. How this lack of knowledge, training, and experience went unchallenged or how it was challenged yet the witness was still deemed to be qualified to present opinion evidence should be profoundly worrisome to all.

Wrongful Conviction Responsibility SharedIn an extensive study by Gould et al in 2012 concerning wrongful and near miss convictions, forensic error was 1 among 10 contributing causes listed, including the negative effect of forensic testimony errors. Mistaken eyewitness identifications (75%), false confessions (14%–25%), perjured informant testimony (snitches) (15%), prosecutorial errors (42%), and inadequate defense (bad lawyering) were contributing causes. No percentage was quoted for bad lawyering, but it was reportedly the biggest factor in capital cases in a Columbia University study. Gould et al stressed that, because these factors and others were often shared in near miss and erroneous conviction cases, it was incorrect to call them causes when they may be merely correlates.

Management of tumor patients now relies on new individualized approaches to treatment, requiring extensive knowledge of the molecular makeup of tumors. Atlas of General Surgical Techniques covers the full spectrum and breadth of general surgery through nearly 1200 easy-to-follow anatomic drawings. Townsend, Jr. Mark Evers present step-by-step guidance for common and complex procedures, including open and minimally invasive techniques. The highly consistent approach and oversized format allow for large educational illustrations with pearls and pitfalls at the end of each chapter. Comprehensive coverage includes hot topics such as Thyroidectomy, Parathyroidectomy, Hepaticojejunostomy, Choledochojejunostomy, Splenectomy,Hernia Repair, Exploration of Neck for Trauma, and Subclavian Artery Stab. A seemingly boundless wealth of exquisite images for the diagnosis and therapy of diseases of the oral cavity, and systemic diseases with oral manifestationsThis remarkable reference work is the result of decades of experience on the part of a top specialist in oral medicine, George Laskaris.

Color Atlas of Ultrasound Anatomy, Second Edition presents a systematic, step-by-step introduction to normal sectional anatomy of the abdominal and pelvic organs and thyroid gland, essential for recognizing the anatomic landmarks and variations seen on ultrasound. Its convenient, double-page format, with more than 250 image quartets showing ultrasound images on the left and explanatory drawings on the right, is ideal for rapid comprehension.

A FULLY ILLUSTRATED DIAGNOSTIC AID FORDERMATOLOGISTS AND PATHOLOGISTS AT ALL LEVELSDifferential diagnosis is at its most accurate and efficient when clinical presentation and histopathological features are considered in correlation with one another. With this being so, the expert team behind this atlas has integrated both perspectives to create an innovative and essential resource for all those involved with the diagnosis of tumors, cysts, and nevi. Hundreds of full-color images clearly illustrate common patterns and variants of tumorous lesions of the skin and are helpfully contextualized by concise, straightforward descriptions of key features and diagnostic clues.Whether in training or in practice, dermatologists and pathologists of all levels will find this an insightful and practically applicable addition to their bookshelf. Its far-reaching and easy-to-navigate coverage of relevant diseases of the skin provides trainees with an excellent grounding in the area, while practicing specialists may benefit from its use as a tool for the differential diagnoses of borderline cases. The third edition of Atlas of Laryngoscopy has been updated and improved upon to present the latest information from experts in the field.

Each of the 146 chapters is made up of applicable case studies and color, high-resolution photographs. As the skill of diagnosis remains critical for residents, fellows, practitioners, and academics, the third edition adds new diagnostic information. It also includes new clinical observations. Covering everything from normal vocal fold anatomy to vocal fold cancer to rare traumatic injuries, there is no other book like this in the field.

It is a must-have for residents and professors alike.GET IT FREE HEREALTERNATIVE LINK. Publisher’s Note: Products purchased from 3rd Party sellers are not guaranteed by the Publisher for quality, authenticity, or access to any online entitlements included with the product.

Prepare for the dissection lab and operating room with Anatomy: A Photographic Atlas, 8e. Featuring outstanding full-color photographs of actual cadaver dissections with accompanying schematic drawings and diagnostic images, this proven text depicts anatomic structures more realistically than illustrations in traditional atlases. Chapters are organized by region in the order of a typical dissection with each chapter presenting topographical anatomical structures in a systemic manner. Authentic photographic reproduction of colors, structures, and spatial dimensions as seen in the dissection lab and on the operating table help you develop an understanding of the anatomy of the human body.

Functional connections between single organs, the surrounding tissue, and organ systems are clarified to prepare you for the dissection lab and practical exams. Clinical cases and over 1,200 images enhance your understanding. Dissections illustrate the topographical anatomy in layers “from the outside in” to better prepare you for the lab and operating room.GET IT FREE HEREALTERNATIVE LINK. Publisher’s Note: Products purchased from 3rd Party sellers are not guaranteed by the Publisher for quality, authenticity, or access to any online entitlements included with the product. Prepare for the dissection lab and operating room with Anatomy: A Photographic Atlas, 8e. Featuring outstanding full-color photographs of actual cadaver dissections with accompanying schematic drawings and diagnostic images, this proven text depicts anatomic structures more realistically than illustrations in traditional atlases.

Chapters are organized by region in the order of a typical dissection with each chapter presenting topographical anatomical structures in a systemic manner. Authentic photographic reproduction of colors, structures, and spatial dimensions as seen in the dissection lab and on the operating table help you develop an understanding of the anatomy of the human body. Functional connections between single organs, the surrounding tissue, and organ systems are clarified to prepare you for the dissection lab and practical exams.

Clinical cases and over 1,200 images enhance your understanding. Dissections illustrate the topographical anatomy in layers “from the outside in” to better prepare you for the lab and operating room. Categories.

(529). (344). (173).

A Color Atlas And Text Of Clinical Medicine

(88). (14). (1,082). (145). (346).

(368). (417). (27). (425). (488). (111). (369).

(60). (60).

(348). (22). (217).

(138). (180). (70). (15). (350). (400).

(346). (58). (250). (34). (238). (1,582).

Bite Mark Evidence A Color Atlas And Text 2nd Edition Book

(30). (17).

(185). (1,805). (52). (764).

(359). (495). (33). (1,357). (321). (500). (48).

(670). (957). (878). (51).

(458). (24). (79). (129). (1,066). (1,372).

(97). (256). (165). (45). (182). (142).

(1,357). (177).

(2,494). (186).

(200). (37).