reported by youarewithinthenorms.com
NORMAN J CLEMENT, RPH, DDS, NORMAN L. CLEMENT PHARM-TECH, MALACHI F. MACKANDAL PHARMD, BELINDA BROWN-PARKER, IN THE SPIRIT OF JOSEPH SOLVO ESQ., INC.T. SPIRIT OF REV. IN THE SPIRIT OF WALTER R. CLEMENT BS., MS, MBA. HARVEY JENKINS MD, PH.D., IN THE SPIRIT OF C.T. VIVIAN, JELANI ZIMBABWE CLEMENT, BS., MBA., IN THE SPIRIT OF THE HON. PATRICE LUMUMBA, IN THE SPIRIT OF ERLIN CLEMENT SR., EVELYN J. CLEMENT, WALTER F. WRENN III., MD., JULIE KILLINGSWORTH, RENEE BLARE, RPH, DR. TERENCE SASAKI, MDLESLY POMPY MD., CHRISTOPHER RUSSO, MD., NANCY SEEFELDT, WILLIE GUINYARD BS., JOSEPH WEBSTER MD., MBA, BEVERLY C. PRINCE MD., FACS., NEIL ARNAND, MD., RICHARD KAUL, MD., LEROY BAYLOR, JAY K. JOSHI MD., MBA, ADRIENNE EDMUNDSON, ESTER HYATT PH.D., WALTER L. SMITH BS., IN THE SPIRIT OF BRAHM FISHER ESQ., MICHELE ALEXANDER MD., CUDJOE WILDING BS, MARTIN NJOKU, BS., RPH., IN THE SPIRIT OF DEBRA LYNN SHEPHERD, BERES E. MUSCHETT, STRATEGIC ADVISORS
“THE RAT KING” FATHER OF NEO-EUGENICS
OBLITERATING DR. TIMOTHY E KING’s FRAUDULENT DATA ANALYSIS
The President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) Report released its latest report in September 2016, Forensic Science in Criminal Courts: Ensuring Scientific Validity of Feature-Comparison Methods. “The PCAST Report highlighted the need for increased rigor in assessing the scientific validity of evidence from various forensic disciplines, many of which employ feature-comparison methodologies, including hair, latent fingerprint, firearm, DNA complex-mixture sample, footwear, and bite mark analysis and undermines the so-called Forensic Methodologies of Dr. Timothy E. Kings, MD.
BITE MARKS AND THE UNCOVERING OF TIMOTHY E. KINGS’ FRAUD
As the Report frankly explains, reviews by competent bodies of the scientific underpinnings of forensic disciplines and the use in courtrooms of evidence based on those disciplines have revealed a dismaying frequency of instances of use of forensic evidence that do not pass an objective test of scientific validity.”
“Bite mark evidence, otherwise known as forensic odontology, has been the subject of significant scrutiny. Forensic odontology entails examining marks left on the skin or an object to determine if they are human bite marks and then comparing those human bite marks to a suspect’s dental impressions.
Not only has the discipline proven incapable of reliably individuating an alleged bite mark—that is, establishing that a bite mark belongs to a specific individual—it cannot even reliably identify skin marks as either human or animal bite marks.
As recently as the spring of 2015, the American Board of Forensic Odontology (ABFO) could not find consensus among thirty-nine ABFO-certified bite mark experts on whether a patterned injury was a human bite mark or if it had identifying features for individualization.
The Case of Dr. Timothy King: A Recap of the Allegations
The saga of Dr. King’s involvement in various legal proceedings has garnered widespread attention and generated significant controversy. Those who have been closely following the developments of these cases have expressed concerns about Dr. King’s impartiality, credibility, and adherence to scientific principles in his capacity as a government expert on opioids and pain management.
DR. TIMOTHY E. KING, MD “THE MOTHER OF ALL RATS AND FORENSIC FRAUD”
The allegations against Dr. King, often referred to as the “Rat King,” center around his purported misuse of his expert status to perpetuate false narratives, biased interpretations, and unverified claims in federal courtrooms throughout the United States.
These allegations were laid bare in a series of letters that criticized his actions and questioned the veracity of his expert testimony.
“THE CANDY EVERYBODY WANTS”
Falsehoods and Misleading Statements: A Pattern of Deception:
One of the core issues raised in these letters is Dr. King’s repeated use of false and misleading statements during court proceedings. An example cited pertains to Dr. King’s assertion that prescriptions of opioids should be deemed illegitimate if there is no objective evidence of functional improvement among patients. This premise, however, fails to account for the inherently subjective nature of pain – a critical factor in assessing the effectiveness of pain management.
Moreover, Dr. King’s purported bias comes to light when examining his stance on opioid addiction and dangers associated with these medications. His sweeping statement that “opioid addiction and the dangers associated therein have been known for 3,000 years” raises questions about his willingness to acknowledge evolving scientific understanding and emerging research that challenges such a blanket assertion. Critics argue that this stance disregards nuanced insights into opioid usage and safety.
A COMPARATIVE DATA ANALYTIC LINK TO TIMOTHY KING’S FRAUD
In the same year, the Assistant Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy singled out bite mark evidence as an example of an unreliable forensic discipline and called for its eradication.” Shockingly, courts continue to admit bite mark evidence in criminal trials and do so virtually exclusively on the bases of precedent. Demonstrating the powerful influence of the repeat litigant “Barratry” prosecutors, courts continue to admit prosecutor’s proffers of unreliable bite mark evidence in criminal cases, notwithstanding the fact that “bite mark evidence has led to more than two dozen wrongful arrests or convictions.”
According to Robert Curtis:
“King belongs in prison for the rest of his life.
For the pain and suffering plus all the convictions based on King’s lies in testimony should have him serving a life sentence if not on death row. After kings incarceration should come the arrest and convictions of top DEA AND DOJ officials who have also caused such needless pain and suffering and their dirty hand in these physicians’ convictions.”
DR. TIMOTHY E. KING, MD BELONGS IN PRISON ON FEDERAL DEATH ROW
Indeed, admitting courts mistakenly rely on prosecutorial arguments that bite marks have been accepted as a valid scientific theory by a sister court instead of conducting an independent Daubert analysis. The treatise on Modern Scientific Evidence itself states that “rather than the field [of forensic odontology] convincing the courts of the sufficiency of its knowledge and skills, admission by the courts seems to have convinced the forensic odontology community that, despite their doubts, they were indeed able to perform bite mark identifications after all.
Michael J. Saks et al., Forensic Bitemark Identification: Weak Foundations, Exaggerated Claims, 3 J.L. & BIOSCIS. 538, 546 (2016) (explaining that, in Burke v. Town of Walpole, 2004 WL502617 (D. Mass. 2004), aff’d in part, vacated in part, 405 F.3d 66 (1st Cir. 2005), “the federal magistrate judge appeared never to doubt the validity of bitemark expertise though the best the court could do to support its faith was to cite cases that cite cases that express the same credulousness”).
FOR NOW, YOU ARE WITHIN