#145 Wrongful Conviction: Junk Science - Bite Mark Evidence

Explicit content warning

08/03/20 • 29 min

6 Listeners

Introducing Josh Dubin, civil rights and criminal defense attorney, and Innocence Ambassador to the Innocence Project in New York. On the debut episode of Wrongful Conviction: Junk Science, Josh explores bite mark evidence.

Like other forms of junk science used in criminal trials, bite mark evidence does not benefit crime victims or their loved ones. So why is it treated like credible science?

It turns out that the charade of bite mark evidence is actually older than the United States.

Learn more and get involved.

https://www.wrongfulconvictionpodcast.com/junk-science

Wrongful Conviction: Junk Science is a production of Lava for GoodTM Podcasts in association with Signal Co No1.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Like other forms of junk science used in criminal trials, bite mark evidence does not benefit crime victims or their loved ones. So why is it treated like credible science?

It turns out that the charade of bite mark evidence is actually older than the United States.

Learn more and get involved.

https://www.wrongfulconvictionpodcast.com/junk-science

Wrongful Conviction: Junk Science is a production of Lava for GoodTM Podcasts in association with Signal Co No1.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Previous Episode

Wrongful Conviction: Junk Science - Trailer

True scientific expertise, built through rigorous study and review, is absolutely vital in a court of law. But what happens when one claims to be an expert - in a discipline that isn’t based in science at all? Meet renowned attorney and Innocence Project Ambassador Josh Dubin. He is the host of the brand new series from Lava For Good Podcast, Wrongful Conviction: Junk Science. Josh explores junk sciences, such as bite mark analysis, arson science, and many others, along with the curious origin stories that led to their viral spread via legal precedent. He is joined by the journalists and lawyers who chronicle, combat, and defend against the harrowing impact of these junk sciences. Welcome to Wrongful Conviction: Junk Science launching August 3rd, 2020. http://www.wrongfulconvictionpodcast.com Wrongful Conviction: Junk Science is a production of Lava for Good™ Podcasts in association with Signal Co No1. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Next Episode

#146 Jason Flom with Jamal Trulove

In the summer of 2007, Jamal Trulove was an aspiring rapper from San Francisco’s Sunnydale projects. He had hoped that scoring himself a role on a reality television show would help his music career. Instead, his appearance on television would help police pin a July 27 murder on him. Over 30 witnesses, including Jamal himself, would not snitch, but someone had to go down for it. His most momentous mention on television yet would occur during the 2020 Democratic Primary debate.

Learn more and get involved at:

https://www.wrongfulconvictionpodcast.com/with-jason-flom

Wrongful Conviction is a production of Lava for GoodTM Podcasts in association with Signal Co. No1.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Wrongful Conviction - #145 Wrongful Conviction: Junk Science - Bite Mark Evidence

Transcript Summary

In episode #145 of the podcast titled "Wrongful Conviction: Junk Science - Bite Mark Evidence," listeners are taken through a chilling scenario of a wrongful conviction. The speaker recounts a case where someone is falsely accused of a heinous crime, and bite mark evidence becomes the focus of the investigation. Delving into the history of this questionable practice from its origins in the Salem witch trials to its acceptance after the Ted Bundy case, the episode reveals the unreliability of bite mark evidence. Factors such as skin condition and body angles are shown to greatly affect the appearance of bite marks, rendering them unreliable and based on speculation. Odentologists, the supposed experts in bite mark evidence, can be persuasive in court using dental jargon, despite the lack of scientific credibility behind their methods. Shockingly, this flawed evidence has led to wrongful convictions, and courts continue to allow its admissibility while prosecutors prioritize winning cases over using scientifically sound evidence. However, lawyers and organizations like the Innocence Project are fighting to overturn cases based on bite mark evidence and raise awareness about its inaccuracies. The episode concludes by reminding listeners of the importance of advocating for policy changes, challenging evidence reliability, and upholding the presumption of innocence. The upcoming episode will explore another questionable practice in the realm of forensics: blood spatter analysis. Don't miss out on this insightful episode that exposes the unsettling flaws in the criminal justice system and calls for change.

Transcript

Speaker 100:00:00.760

Imagine this. You're at your house. You're standing at the stove making dinner. You hear a knock at the door. It's the police. They ask you your name. They've been looking for you. The first thing you think is, oh, no, something must have happened to a friend or someone in my family. An officer looks you in the eye. They need to ask you some questions. What is it? What happened?

Speaker 100:00:30.199

They won't tel

#145 Wrongful Conviction: Junk Science - Bite Mark Evidence Top Questions Answered

What is bite mark evidence?

Bite mark evidence is the use of marks left on human skin by biting as a form of forensic evidence in criminal trials.

When did the use of bite mark evidence gain popularity?

The use of bite mark evidence gained popularity in the United States during the trial of George Burrows in 1692.

Why is bite mark evidence considered unreliable?

Bite mark evidence is considered unreliable because it does not accurately represent the unique characteristics of a person's teeth and can be influenced by various factors like skin condition and body shape.

How can bite marks be manipulated?

Bite marks can be manipulated to match almost any suspect, making them highly subjective and speculative.

What is the Innocence Project?

The Innocence Project is an organization that aims to eliminate wrongful convictions by advocating for criminal justice reform and the use of scientific evidence.

Is bite mark evidence considered a reliable scientific fact?

No, bite mark evidence is actually considered junk science, despite often being presented in court as solid scientific evidence.

How has bite mark evidence led to wrongful convictions?

Bite mark evidence has led to wrongful convictions as injuries misidentified as bite marks have been used as evidence against innocent individuals.

Are bite mark experts reliable in interpreting the data?

Bite mark experts lack the ability to accurately interpret the data they collect, as shown by varying opinions among top experts on whether certain injuries are bite marks or not.