Yet in recent years, critics argue that bite mark analysis is subjective and has never undergone thorough experimental validation. Bite mark evidence has played a key role in cases, such as the trial of Ted Bundy. The validity of bite marks as evidence depends upon two assumptions: Teeth leave recognizable marks unique to an individual, and this uniqueness is transferred and recorded in the bitten substance. Posted in Impression evidence | Tagged bite mark, impression evidence Bite Mark Evidence Losing its Bite? Fabricant is the director of strategic litigation at the Innocence Project. “Bite mark evidence is the poster child of unreliable forensic science,” Chris Fabricant told Myers. Critics argue, however, that neither assumption is supported by scientific studies. Second, this uniqueness is transferred and recorded in the bitten substance. First, teeth leave recognizable marks unique to an individual. The validity of bite marks as evidence depends upon two assumptions. Bite mark evidence had thrown one man in prison for more than 23 years. The results of the study: Since 2000, at least 24 men have been exonerated. The Associated Press analyzed court records to learn the number of those who have been exonerated after they were convicted or charged based on bite mark evidence. “A small, mostly ungoverned group of dentists carry out bite mark analysis,” Myers wrote, “and their findings are often key evidence in prosecutions, even though there is no scientific proof that teeth can be matched definitively to a bite into human skin.” The Associated Press’ Amanda Myers wrote a very interesting article about problems with bite mark impression evidence.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |