1 00:00:00,840 --> 00:00:05,080 Speaker 1: Imagine this. You're at your house. You're standing at the 2 00:00:05,080 --> 00:00:08,399 Speaker 1: stove making dinner. You hear a knock at the door. 3 00:00:09,320 --> 00:00:13,600 Speaker 1: It's the police. They ask you your name. They've been 4 00:00:13,640 --> 00:00:17,160 Speaker 1: looking for you. The first thing you think is, oh, no, 5 00:00:17,800 --> 00:00:20,400 Speaker 1: something must have happened to a friend or someone in 6 00:00:20,440 --> 00:00:24,800 Speaker 1: my family. An officer looks you in the eye. They 7 00:00:24,840 --> 00:00:28,840 Speaker 1: need to ask you some questions. What is it? What happened? 8 00:00:30,240 --> 00:00:32,800 Speaker 1: They won't tell you. You'll need to go down to the 9 00:00:32,840 --> 00:00:36,159 Speaker 1: police station. You agree to go with them, and you 10 00:00:36,280 --> 00:00:41,680 Speaker 1: ask them over and over what's the problem. You're putting 11 00:00:41,720 --> 00:00:45,240 Speaker 1: a small windowless room and you're very anxious, and you're 12 00:00:45,240 --> 00:00:50,400 Speaker 1: told you wait here. Two plain closed detectives eventually come in. 13 00:00:50,840 --> 00:00:54,240 Speaker 1: One sits across from you, or a rickety table separates 14 00:00:54,280 --> 00:00:56,600 Speaker 1: you from him. The other comes to your side of 15 00:00:56,600 --> 00:00:59,760 Speaker 1: the table and he sits so close to you that is, 16 00:01:00,040 --> 00:01:04,480 Speaker 1: he is touching yours. He quickly begins accusing you of 17 00:01:04,640 --> 00:01:09,360 Speaker 1: raping and murdering someone. He says a name that you recognize. 18 00:01:09,800 --> 00:01:13,200 Speaker 1: It's your ex who you haven't been in contact with 19 00:01:13,480 --> 00:01:17,199 Speaker 1: for years. The one sitting closest to you who tells 20 00:01:17,240 --> 00:01:19,720 Speaker 1: you the murder happened last night and that the only 21 00:01:19,760 --> 00:01:22,400 Speaker 1: way you can help yourself is to just admit what 22 00:01:22,480 --> 00:01:26,360 Speaker 1: you did. He asked you where you were yesterday. At first, 23 00:01:26,440 --> 00:01:29,039 Speaker 1: it's not easy to remember the mundane details of the 24 00:01:29,080 --> 00:01:32,840 Speaker 1: past day. You were just told that your ex was murdered. 25 00:01:33,840 --> 00:01:36,560 Speaker 1: But you take a deep breath and you try to focus. 26 00:01:37,560 --> 00:01:40,200 Speaker 1: You were at work all day. On your way home, 27 00:01:40,240 --> 00:01:43,160 Speaker 1: you went to the grocery store. Then you stopped and 28 00:01:43,200 --> 00:01:45,160 Speaker 1: had a bureau of some friends at a local bar. 29 00:01:45,760 --> 00:01:49,040 Speaker 1: Then you got gas at the gas station. You ran 30 00:01:49,080 --> 00:01:52,400 Speaker 1: into one of your neighbors. You can remember sitting there 31 00:01:52,440 --> 00:01:57,840 Speaker 1: across from those detectives, at least nine alibi witnesses. You 32 00:01:57,960 --> 00:02:00,640 Speaker 1: tell this to the detectives, and this gets them even 33 00:02:00,680 --> 00:02:04,640 Speaker 1: more pissed. They say, look, we don't believe you. We 34 00:02:04,800 --> 00:02:08,160 Speaker 1: know you killed this woman. They tell you that the 35 00:02:08,240 --> 00:02:11,920 Speaker 1: victim has bite marks all over her neck, on her shoulder, 36 00:02:12,080 --> 00:02:15,240 Speaker 1: her inner thigh, and her arm. They tell you that 37 00:02:15,320 --> 00:02:18,720 Speaker 1: the killer left those bite marks, that they can determine 38 00:02:18,760 --> 00:02:21,959 Speaker 1: who committed this crime just by taking a dental impression 39 00:02:22,000 --> 00:02:24,760 Speaker 1: of their teeth and matching it to the bite marks 40 00:02:24,800 --> 00:02:28,200 Speaker 1: on the victim. And if you're so innocent, they say, 41 00:02:28,600 --> 00:02:30,880 Speaker 1: if this is some big mix up, and you didn't 42 00:02:30,880 --> 00:02:33,720 Speaker 1: really do this. Let us just take an impression of 43 00:02:33,760 --> 00:02:39,760 Speaker 1: your teeth. Fine, let's do it. After more forceful accusations, 44 00:02:40,000 --> 00:02:43,320 Speaker 1: they let you sit there, and sit there, and sit there. 45 00:02:44,600 --> 00:02:47,160 Speaker 1: A few hours later, they send a man into the 46 00:02:47,200 --> 00:02:50,480 Speaker 1: room wearing a white lab coat, and he certainly looks 47 00:02:50,560 --> 00:02:53,560 Speaker 1: the part of a dentist. He takes out two metal 48 00:02:53,600 --> 00:02:57,600 Speaker 1: bite plates and fills them with a silly putty like substance. 49 00:02:58,400 --> 00:03:01,800 Speaker 1: He pushes these cold train into your mouth and tells 50 00:03:01,840 --> 00:03:05,680 Speaker 1: you to bite down. The putty tastes like plastic. It 51 00:03:05,760 --> 00:03:09,840 Speaker 1: hugs your teeth, then quickly firms up and drives. Then 52 00:03:09,840 --> 00:03:12,640 Speaker 1: it's pulled from your mouth and there is a perfect impression. 53 00:03:14,000 --> 00:03:16,360 Speaker 1: The cops come back in and they tell you you 54 00:03:16,400 --> 00:03:20,280 Speaker 1: can leave the police station, but they also tell you you're 55 00:03:19,919 --> 00:03:24,280 Speaker 1: not to leave town. Three sleepless nights later, you're at 56 00:03:24,320 --> 00:03:27,639 Speaker 1: your house, laying awake in bed, and you're really overcome 57 00:03:27,639 --> 00:03:32,000 Speaker 1: by anxiety. You're wondering, do I need an attorney or 58 00:03:32,080 --> 00:03:33,840 Speaker 1: does that make it look like I may have actually 59 00:03:33,880 --> 00:03:36,840 Speaker 1: done something wrong? How do I act? What am I 60 00:03:36,880 --> 00:03:42,720 Speaker 1: supposed to do? And then your dog starts barking. This 61 00:03:42,840 --> 00:03:48,000 Speaker 1: time they don't knock. Your front door is blown off 62 00:03:48,040 --> 00:03:50,680 Speaker 1: its hinges by a swat team, and before you know 63 00:03:50,760 --> 00:03:54,480 Speaker 1: what's happening, you are on the ground. You can clearly 64 00:03:54,520 --> 00:03:58,560 Speaker 1: hear one of these cops yell at you don't fucking move. 65 00:03:59,360 --> 00:04:03,440 Speaker 1: Your face is being pushed into the carpet. You're being handcuffed. 66 00:04:03,920 --> 00:04:06,560 Speaker 1: You're told you're being charged with the rape and murder 67 00:04:06,560 --> 00:04:09,760 Speaker 1: of your ex who you haven't seen or spoken to 68 00:04:09,920 --> 00:04:17,640 Speaker 1: in years. At your trial, the prosecution gets two experts 69 00:04:17,640 --> 00:04:21,400 Speaker 1: in bite marks, called odentologists, an impressive sounding title for 70 00:04:21,480 --> 00:04:26,159 Speaker 1: a forensic dentist, and they explain how the ridges, angles, peaks, 71 00:04:26,160 --> 00:04:30,679 Speaker 1: and valleys of your teeth, these unique characteristics, perfectly matched 72 00:04:30,720 --> 00:04:34,240 Speaker 1: with the bite marks on the victim. They say things 73 00:04:34,279 --> 00:04:37,960 Speaker 1: to the jury that sound really impressive. There's a one 74 00:04:38,000 --> 00:04:40,440 Speaker 1: in a million chants that these bite marks are anyone 75 00:04:40,480 --> 00:04:43,640 Speaker 1: else's but the defendants, they say, and we know that 76 00:04:43,880 --> 00:04:50,800 Speaker 1: to a degree of scientific certainty. The jury seems to 77 00:04:50,839 --> 00:04:55,039 Speaker 1: be completely buying this, and why not? It all sounds 78 00:04:55,120 --> 00:05:01,040 Speaker 1: so rational, so infallible. You're thinking, I'm really screwed here, 79 00:05:02,120 --> 00:05:09,360 Speaker 1: but you know you're innocent. Countless innocent men and women 80 00:05:09,760 --> 00:05:14,839 Speaker 1: have lived this horrific nightmare. Their wrongful convictions are based 81 00:05:14,839 --> 00:05:21,040 Speaker 1: on evidence presented by odentologists, the quote unquote scientific experts 82 00:05:21,040 --> 00:05:28,240 Speaker 1: and bitemark evidence. I'm Josh Duben, civil rights and criminal 83 00:05:28,240 --> 00:05:31,919 Speaker 1: defense attorney, an innocent ambassador to the Innocence Project in 84 00:05:31,960 --> 00:05:36,200 Speaker 1: New York. Today on wrongful conviction junk science, We're going 85 00:05:36,200 --> 00:05:40,960 Speaker 1: to explore bitemark evidence. Like other forms of junk science 86 00:05:41,040 --> 00:05:44,960 Speaker 1: used in criminal trials, bitemark evidence does not benefit crime 87 00:05:45,040 --> 00:05:48,320 Speaker 1: victims or their loved ones, So why is it treated 88 00:05:48,360 --> 00:05:52,400 Speaker 1: like credible science. It turns out that the charade of 89 00:05:52,440 --> 00:06:06,640 Speaker 1: bitemark evidence is actually older than the United States. On 90 00:06:06,680 --> 00:06:10,120 Speaker 1: April thirtieth, sixteen ninety two, a reverend by the name 91 00:06:10,160 --> 00:06:13,760 Speaker 1: of George Burrows was arrested and accused of torturing young 92 00:06:13,800 --> 00:06:17,159 Speaker 1: women into witchcraft. It was alleged that he would inflict 93 00:06:17,279 --> 00:06:22,000 Speaker 1: various forms of physical harm on them, pinching, strangling, and yes, 94 00:06:22,400 --> 00:06:27,240 Speaker 1: biting them. The evidence against Burrows was really thin, but 95 00:06:27,320 --> 00:06:30,560 Speaker 1: the only physical evidence were the alleged bite marks that 96 00:06:30,640 --> 00:06:33,760 Speaker 1: the prosecution claimed his teeth left on the flesh of 97 00:06:33,760 --> 00:06:38,200 Speaker 1: his victims. At his trial, Reverend Burroughs was pulled by 98 00:06:38,200 --> 00:06:41,760 Speaker 1: the face around the courtroom and his mouth was pride open. 99 00:06:42,680 --> 00:06:45,640 Speaker 1: A stick was used to point out the unique characteristics 100 00:06:45,680 --> 00:06:49,520 Speaker 1: of Burrow's teeth, the peaks, the angles of his molars, 101 00:06:50,360 --> 00:06:52,359 Speaker 1: and then they were compared to what the court was 102 00:06:52,400 --> 00:06:56,359 Speaker 1: told were bite marks on the young girls. Burrows was 103 00:06:56,440 --> 00:07:00,000 Speaker 1: convicted and publicly hanged. While he stood on a ladder 104 00:07:00,080 --> 00:07:02,919 Speaker 1: waiting the tightening him a noose around his neck, he prayed. 105 00:07:03,680 --> 00:07:07,159 Speaker 1: He recited the Lord's prayer, and a collective gasp, like 106 00:07:07,240 --> 00:07:10,160 Speaker 1: a creeping wave, rolled through the crowd that had gathered 107 00:07:10,160 --> 00:07:13,760 Speaker 1: to watch his hanging. Because the Lord's prayer was considered 108 00:07:13,800 --> 00:07:20,600 Speaker 1: impossible for a witch, and so bite mark evidence was born. 109 00:07:20,720 --> 00:07:26,880 Speaker 1: In the bloodthirsty hysteria of the Salem witch trials, Burrow's 110 00:07:26,920 --> 00:07:29,720 Speaker 1: recitation of the Lord's Prayer should have been a sign 111 00:07:30,000 --> 00:07:33,160 Speaker 1: that something was wrong with his conviction, that he wasn't 112 00:07:33,160 --> 00:07:37,520 Speaker 1: a witch after all, Because it turns out the angry, 113 00:07:37,680 --> 00:07:41,240 Speaker 1: frenzied mob that was so quick to accuse, convict, and 114 00:07:41,360 --> 00:07:45,679 Speaker 1: hang George Burrows had in fact executed an innocent man. 115 00:07:46,800 --> 00:07:50,040 Speaker 1: Twenty years after he was put to death, George Burrows 116 00:07:50,160 --> 00:07:54,400 Speaker 1: was declared innocent. He was in another town altogether, on 117 00:07:54,480 --> 00:07:58,920 Speaker 1: the knights that the victims were allegedly tortured. George Burrows 118 00:07:58,920 --> 00:08:02,480 Speaker 1: hadn't beiten anyone at all. That entire show that was 119 00:08:02,480 --> 00:08:05,520 Speaker 1: put on in that courtroom, the circus of forcing his 120 00:08:05,640 --> 00:08:09,840 Speaker 1: mouth open was nothing more than performance masquerading as science. 121 00:08:11,000 --> 00:08:15,280 Speaker 1: And yet bitemark evidence is still being used in courtrooms 122 00:08:15,280 --> 00:08:19,280 Speaker 1: across the country to convict innocent people of crimes they 123 00:08:19,320 --> 00:08:20,240 Speaker 1: did not commit. 124 00:08:22,200 --> 00:08:26,040 Speaker 2: Every single case that my department has gotten involved in 125 00:08:26,120 --> 00:08:28,680 Speaker 2: has ended up in reversal of the conviction, or exclusion 126 00:08:28,680 --> 00:08:31,240 Speaker 2: of the evidence, or withdrawal of the evidence because it's 127 00:08:31,240 --> 00:08:32,480 Speaker 2: so grossly unreliable. 128 00:08:33,360 --> 00:08:35,880 Speaker 1: To tell us more about bitemark evidence, we have Chris 129 00:08:35,920 --> 00:08:39,880 Speaker 1: Fabricaon from the Innocence Project here with us today. Throughout 130 00:08:39,880 --> 00:08:42,760 Speaker 1: his twenty year legal career, Chris has worked on countless 131 00:08:42,800 --> 00:08:45,800 Speaker 1: cases in which innocent men and women spent decades in 132 00:08:45,880 --> 00:08:48,120 Speaker 1: prison because of bitemark evidence. 133 00:08:48,520 --> 00:08:52,800 Speaker 2: We at the Innocence Project had an agenda about eliminating 134 00:08:52,840 --> 00:08:55,160 Speaker 2: the use of bitemark evidence and criminal trials. 135 00:08:56,000 --> 00:08:59,960 Speaker 1: Chris, there's a case from the nineteen seventies, the People 136 00:09:00,120 --> 00:09:03,320 Speaker 1: versus Marx, which I believe is the first modern instance 137 00:09:03,360 --> 00:09:08,000 Speaker 1: of a bite mark on human skin being presented as evidence. 138 00:09:08,600 --> 00:09:10,280 Speaker 1: Can you tell us about this case. 139 00:09:10,720 --> 00:09:15,440 Speaker 2: So Walter Marx was a weekend tenant of a woman 140 00:09:15,600 --> 00:09:19,160 Speaker 2: named Lovey Borzanski, and so the first time since he 141 00:09:19,200 --> 00:09:21,560 Speaker 2: had had this lease, he did not spend the night 142 00:09:21,840 --> 00:09:25,800 Speaker 2: on the weekend, and that same weekend the murder victim 143 00:09:25,920 --> 00:09:30,160 Speaker 2: turned up dead. Police discovered the body on Sunday afternoon, 144 00:09:30,200 --> 00:09:36,720 Speaker 2: and they noticed that the victims nose had been indelicately 145 00:09:36,760 --> 00:09:42,040 Speaker 2: put bitten off, and the cartilage of the nose on 146 00:09:42,080 --> 00:09:44,880 Speaker 2: the victim's face had left the impression of what appeared 147 00:09:44,920 --> 00:09:47,760 Speaker 2: to be tooth marks. Mister Marx looked good for it, 148 00:09:47,800 --> 00:09:50,120 Speaker 2: but there wasn't really any evidence apart from the fact 149 00:09:50,160 --> 00:09:53,920 Speaker 2: that he didn't show up for his usual weekend stay. 150 00:09:54,720 --> 00:09:58,680 Speaker 2: So there was a group of dentists who had had 151 00:09:58,720 --> 00:10:02,280 Speaker 2: some history with aifying human bodies through dental records, which 152 00:10:02,320 --> 00:10:05,520 Speaker 2: is a totally different, unrelated sub discipline of forensic dentistry. 153 00:10:06,120 --> 00:10:10,120 Speaker 2: But they had had some interest in bitemark evidence and 154 00:10:10,559 --> 00:10:13,400 Speaker 2: had been kind of looking for the right case to 155 00:10:13,520 --> 00:10:17,480 Speaker 2: essentially try this out. And interestingly, mister Mark spent four 156 00:10:17,559 --> 00:10:21,360 Speaker 2: months in jail on a contempt charge resisting the court 157 00:10:21,520 --> 00:10:24,599 Speaker 2: order to have a mold taken of his teeth. Eventually, 158 00:10:24,880 --> 00:10:27,400 Speaker 2: he gave up and allowed the mold to be taken. 159 00:10:27,800 --> 00:10:31,280 Speaker 1: Now, let me stop you. There didn't like six or 160 00:10:31,440 --> 00:10:34,480 Speaker 1: eight weeks pass before they were able to compare the 161 00:10:34,520 --> 00:10:38,240 Speaker 1: impression on Walter Mark's teeth to the victim. And hadn't 162 00:10:38,280 --> 00:10:41,719 Speaker 1: she already been buried and they had to exhume her body? 163 00:10:41,880 --> 00:10:42,160 Speaker 3: Yeah? 164 00:10:42,280 --> 00:10:45,640 Speaker 2: You know what's interesting about that is that they still 165 00:10:45,679 --> 00:10:49,520 Speaker 2: do exhumations and do that type of pattern matching today. 166 00:10:50,000 --> 00:10:53,240 Speaker 1: Doesn't common sense just dictate that when you bury a 167 00:10:53,320 --> 00:10:58,400 Speaker 1: human body, the skin changes, it starts to wear and decompose. 168 00:10:59,080 --> 00:11:02,840 Speaker 1: It just seems like intuitive that if there was a 169 00:11:02,880 --> 00:11:06,120 Speaker 1: bite mark and you actually could compare a chief to it, 170 00:11:06,160 --> 00:11:09,000 Speaker 1: that it wouldn't be you know, worth anything to make 171 00:11:09,040 --> 00:11:12,200 Speaker 1: that comparison after a body had been buried for that long. 172 00:11:13,080 --> 00:11:14,079 Speaker 3: Yeah, precisely right. 173 00:11:14,120 --> 00:11:16,440 Speaker 2: You're asking the critical questions that no court in the 174 00:11:16,440 --> 00:11:19,960 Speaker 2: country asked. For forty years, state after state after state 175 00:11:20,000 --> 00:11:24,240 Speaker 2: after state cited back to the Walter Marx decision as 176 00:11:24,720 --> 00:11:27,360 Speaker 2: evidence of not just that it's admissibility, but if it's 177 00:11:27,440 --> 00:11:30,600 Speaker 2: scientific reliability. 178 00:11:30,120 --> 00:11:33,640 Speaker 1: This becomes the precedent, This becomes well, hey, bite mark 179 00:11:33,679 --> 00:11:36,800 Speaker 1: evidence was accepted in the Marks case, you should accept 180 00:11:36,840 --> 00:11:38,800 Speaker 1: it here and all of a sudden it just starts 181 00:11:38,840 --> 00:11:41,680 Speaker 1: to get accepted. How is that even possible? 182 00:11:42,080 --> 00:11:42,920 Speaker 3: Because it worked. 183 00:11:43,080 --> 00:11:46,160 Speaker 2: You know, the criminal justice system is an efficient eating 184 00:11:46,160 --> 00:11:49,800 Speaker 2: and killing machine of largely poor people of color, and 185 00:11:49,880 --> 00:11:55,240 Speaker 2: whatever facilitates that process, it's going to be used as 186 00:11:55,240 --> 00:11:58,080 Speaker 2: long as courts admit it. And bite mark evidence was 187 00:11:58,120 --> 00:12:01,880 Speaker 2: introduced as evidence, the admitted it, it got upheld on appeal, 188 00:12:01,960 --> 00:12:02,800 Speaker 2: so it was good to go. 189 00:12:03,200 --> 00:12:06,480 Speaker 1: So bite mark evidence was officially accepted in the Marks 190 00:12:06,559 --> 00:12:10,320 Speaker 1: case and now it has been ingested, if you will, 191 00:12:10,760 --> 00:12:15,120 Speaker 1: into the criminal justice system. But it became acceptable to 192 00:12:15,240 --> 00:12:18,440 Speaker 1: the general public because of the Ted Bundy case. 193 00:12:18,320 --> 00:12:19,640 Speaker 3: Right, Yeah, you know. 194 00:12:19,640 --> 00:12:21,960 Speaker 2: I mean I sometimes say that Ted Bundy ended up 195 00:12:21,960 --> 00:12:25,640 Speaker 2: having many more posthumous victims than any other serial killer 196 00:12:25,880 --> 00:12:28,720 Speaker 2: that we can be aware of, because that his trial 197 00:12:28,800 --> 00:12:30,880 Speaker 2: led to the widespread use of bite mark evidence all 198 00:12:30,920 --> 00:12:31,680 Speaker 2: over the country. 199 00:12:32,320 --> 00:12:34,640 Speaker 1: So for those of our listeners who don't know, but 200 00:12:34,960 --> 00:12:36,960 Speaker 1: I feel like it's safe to say, most dude, Ted 201 00:12:37,000 --> 00:12:40,920 Speaker 1: Bundy was one of the most infamous serial killers in 202 00:12:41,080 --> 00:12:45,400 Speaker 1: US history, and his murder trial was actually the first 203 00:12:45,440 --> 00:12:49,760 Speaker 1: criminal trial to ever be televised in the United States. Now, 204 00:12:49,960 --> 00:12:55,920 Speaker 1: there was overwhelming evidence that proved Bundy was guilty of killing, raping, 205 00:12:56,000 --> 00:13:00,800 Speaker 1: and torturing these young women from Florida State University. And 206 00:13:00,920 --> 00:13:04,760 Speaker 1: they had eyewitness testimony of him, you know, coming to 207 00:13:04,880 --> 00:13:09,040 Speaker 1: the murder scene, leaving the murder scene. They had things 208 00:13:09,080 --> 00:13:11,400 Speaker 1: that he had stolen from the homes of these women. 209 00:13:11,840 --> 00:13:14,520 Speaker 1: And there was sort of like a belts and suspenders 210 00:13:14,600 --> 00:13:17,760 Speaker 1: moment where they wanted to make sure they did everything 211 00:13:17,800 --> 00:13:20,840 Speaker 1: they could to prove his guilt. And they spent two 212 00:13:21,440 --> 00:13:27,040 Speaker 1: full days presenting this bitemark testimony in the case. Why 213 00:13:27,080 --> 00:13:28,800 Speaker 1: do you think that is, Chris. 214 00:13:28,679 --> 00:13:32,640 Speaker 2: People are hungry for every piece of news they could 215 00:13:32,640 --> 00:13:33,960 Speaker 2: possibly get about Ted Bundy. 216 00:13:33,960 --> 00:13:35,400 Speaker 3: Everybody believed he's guilty. 217 00:13:35,800 --> 00:13:38,160 Speaker 2: The only physical evidence in that case was the bitemark, 218 00:13:38,840 --> 00:13:41,080 Speaker 2: so it was touted as you know, bitite marks are 219 00:13:41,080 --> 00:13:43,440 Speaker 2: the thing that finally brought Bundy down. And after Ted 220 00:13:43,440 --> 00:13:46,760 Speaker 2: Bundy was convicted of using bitemark evidence, it really just 221 00:13:46,880 --> 00:13:55,640 Speaker 2: exploded all over the country. 222 00:14:06,280 --> 00:14:11,160 Speaker 1: There's something about teeth and dentists that gets associated with reliability, right. 223 00:14:11,240 --> 00:14:15,160 Speaker 1: I mean, we've all heard about dental records being used 224 00:14:15,160 --> 00:14:21,360 Speaker 1: to identify crime victims accident victims, and that sign seems 225 00:14:21,400 --> 00:14:24,320 Speaker 1: to be real. But that's very different from saying that 226 00:14:24,480 --> 00:14:28,360 Speaker 1: a bitemark can be used to identify the person that 227 00:14:28,720 --> 00:14:30,080 Speaker 1: did the biting, right. 228 00:14:30,160 --> 00:14:33,640 Speaker 2: The identification of human remains through dental records is kind 229 00:14:33,640 --> 00:14:37,120 Speaker 2: of a trojan horse for the forensic dentistry crowd to 230 00:14:37,120 --> 00:14:41,520 Speaker 2: get into court on bitemark evidence, and I've seen it 231 00:14:41,680 --> 00:14:46,760 Speaker 2: firsthand in lots of dentists. Conflating these two subdisciplines is 232 00:14:46,800 --> 00:14:50,080 Speaker 2: the same thing. You identify people by their teeth, and 233 00:14:50,120 --> 00:14:54,160 Speaker 2: you identify people by the bitemarks those teeth make. And 234 00:14:54,480 --> 00:14:57,000 Speaker 2: that kind of makes sense until you actually think about it. 235 00:14:57,080 --> 00:15:00,000 Speaker 2: The two techniques have nothing whatsoever to do with each other. 236 00:15:00,560 --> 00:15:04,720 Speaker 1: So why doesn't bitemark evidence work? Why isn't it reliable? 237 00:15:05,120 --> 00:15:08,400 Speaker 2: Bite marks are totally different because you're interpreting an injury 238 00:15:08,440 --> 00:15:10,840 Speaker 2: on skin that has almost nothing to do with teeth 239 00:15:10,840 --> 00:15:13,880 Speaker 2: at all, And so all of the little individual theoretically 240 00:15:14,000 --> 00:15:17,040 Speaker 2: unique differences in teeth that you're pointing out, the cracks, 241 00:15:17,200 --> 00:15:21,600 Speaker 2: the bevels, the crookedness or the straightness or the missing tooth, 242 00:15:21,680 --> 00:15:23,520 Speaker 2: or this or that that you can think of that 243 00:15:23,560 --> 00:15:25,880 Speaker 2: would be different from mouth to mouth or not reflected 244 00:15:25,920 --> 00:15:29,240 Speaker 2: in the skin whatsoever. But even if you can say 245 00:15:30,240 --> 00:15:35,160 Speaker 2: with some confidence that these two things can be associated. 246 00:15:35,200 --> 00:15:37,160 Speaker 2: Then you have to answer the question is it one 247 00:15:37,200 --> 00:15:39,120 Speaker 2: in ten or is it one in ten million people 248 00:15:39,160 --> 00:15:42,920 Speaker 2: that might also match. So in DNA, we know you 249 00:15:42,960 --> 00:15:46,240 Speaker 2: know fairly well how many other people are likely to 250 00:15:46,280 --> 00:15:50,320 Speaker 2: share your DNA. We've done the statistical population frequencies to 251 00:15:50,400 --> 00:15:54,040 Speaker 2: know and to believe that the human DNA is unique. 252 00:15:54,280 --> 00:15:56,840 Speaker 3: We haven't done that with fingerprints or shoes. 253 00:15:56,560 --> 00:15:59,800 Speaker 2: Or tires or firearms, and we certainly have not done 254 00:15:59,800 --> 00:16:01,400 Speaker 2: the with teeth. 255 00:16:01,800 --> 00:16:04,520 Speaker 1: So you're saying that a bite mark and a suspects 256 00:16:04,560 --> 00:16:08,320 Speaker 1: tooth might appear to match, but many other people's teeth 257 00:16:08,440 --> 00:16:11,840 Speaker 1: might match that same bite mark, so it's not a unique. 258 00:16:11,480 --> 00:16:14,760 Speaker 2: Match, right, So you layer those problems on top of 259 00:16:14,800 --> 00:16:17,600 Speaker 2: bite marks where you're trying to interpret an injury in 260 00:16:17,720 --> 00:16:21,800 Speaker 2: human skin, where all skin is different, right, old people, 261 00:16:21,920 --> 00:16:26,080 Speaker 2: young people, thin people, heavy people. All these things make 262 00:16:26,080 --> 00:16:30,000 Speaker 2: a difference in individual skin characteristics. If you are flexing 263 00:16:30,040 --> 00:16:32,000 Speaker 2: at the time you were bitten, the bite mark's going 264 00:16:32,080 --> 00:16:34,720 Speaker 2: to look one way. If your arm was relaxed at 265 00:16:34,760 --> 00:16:37,320 Speaker 2: the same time, it would look a different way. Right, 266 00:16:37,360 --> 00:16:39,360 Speaker 2: And if you think about somebody who may be lost 267 00:16:39,360 --> 00:16:42,840 Speaker 2: one hundred pounds recently and has saggy skin as a result, right, 268 00:16:42,880 --> 00:16:44,440 Speaker 2: the way that bite mark is going to appear on 269 00:16:44,480 --> 00:16:47,680 Speaker 2: that person's going to be different than somebody who's you know, 270 00:16:48,640 --> 00:16:51,440 Speaker 2: puffy from drinking, right, and their skin's all taut and round, 271 00:16:51,520 --> 00:16:53,000 Speaker 2: you know, and you try and bite into that and 272 00:16:53,040 --> 00:16:55,160 Speaker 2: you're just going to engage a few teeth. So every 273 00:16:55,200 --> 00:16:58,560 Speaker 2: time that the same teeth make a bite mark, it's 274 00:16:58,560 --> 00:17:00,840 Speaker 2: going to look different every single time, depending on the 275 00:17:00,880 --> 00:17:02,800 Speaker 2: angle of the body, what type of struggle it was, 276 00:17:02,840 --> 00:17:05,480 Speaker 2: what type of person that you're dealing with. All of 277 00:17:05,480 --> 00:17:08,119 Speaker 2: these things are variable. Is that change every single time, 278 00:17:08,480 --> 00:17:11,960 Speaker 2: So it's just fundamental speculation, you know, just guess work 279 00:17:12,040 --> 00:17:13,680 Speaker 2: that's proffered as science. 280 00:17:13,840 --> 00:17:16,080 Speaker 3: Very very persuasive, but totally guesswork. 281 00:17:16,480 --> 00:17:19,840 Speaker 1: I read that someone can be missing their front teeth 282 00:17:20,760 --> 00:17:25,040 Speaker 1: bite down on human skin, and the bite mark can 283 00:17:25,200 --> 00:17:27,920 Speaker 1: make it appears if they actually have two front teeth, 284 00:17:28,640 --> 00:17:31,480 Speaker 1: and that someone would two front teeth that are fully 285 00:17:31,520 --> 00:17:35,119 Speaker 1: intact and bite down and the bitemark can look like 286 00:17:35,800 --> 00:17:37,480 Speaker 1: they are missing two front teeth. 287 00:17:37,760 --> 00:17:39,600 Speaker 2: Can really get the skin to say anything that you 288 00:17:39,680 --> 00:17:42,960 Speaker 2: needed to say. You can match a bitemark to almost 289 00:17:42,960 --> 00:17:43,760 Speaker 2: any suspect. 290 00:17:43,920 --> 00:17:47,240 Speaker 1: But if this evidence is so unreliable, then what exactly 291 00:17:47,320 --> 00:17:52,400 Speaker 1: makes these odentologists, these bitemark experts, so convincing that they're 292 00:17:52,440 --> 00:17:56,119 Speaker 1: able to convince a judge or a jury of an 293 00:17:56,160 --> 00:17:57,639 Speaker 1: innocent person's guilt. 294 00:17:57,760 --> 00:18:00,560 Speaker 2: So you'll see these experts that are testifying and using 295 00:18:00,880 --> 00:18:05,280 Speaker 2: a lot of scientific terminology plus a lot of obscure 296 00:18:05,359 --> 00:18:09,320 Speaker 2: dental terminology, and the testimony just becomes opaque, and you 297 00:18:09,400 --> 00:18:11,800 Speaker 2: just kind of turn off your brain and your critical thinking. 298 00:18:11,920 --> 00:18:15,920 Speaker 2: And the experts sounds so persuasive because they have ten 299 00:18:16,000 --> 00:18:18,240 Speaker 2: thousand different ways to record a bite mark. Some of 300 00:18:18,280 --> 00:18:20,560 Speaker 2: them go so far as harvesting tissue they call it 301 00:18:20,600 --> 00:18:24,720 Speaker 2: from dead bodies and mounting them on silicone rings. And 302 00:18:24,760 --> 00:18:28,320 Speaker 2: they use ultra violet photography and digital photography and black 303 00:18:28,320 --> 00:18:33,320 Speaker 2: and white photography, and they use very very precise dental molds, 304 00:18:33,359 --> 00:18:37,120 Speaker 2: and they use dental materials that are highly highly accurate. 305 00:18:37,200 --> 00:18:37,840 Speaker 3: All that's very. 306 00:18:37,720 --> 00:18:42,440 Speaker 2: Impressive, it's just totally meaningless. There's massive distinction between collecting 307 00:18:42,520 --> 00:18:47,120 Speaker 2: data and interpreting data, and what a lot of junk 308 00:18:47,200 --> 00:18:53,320 Speaker 2: science relies on very very precise and impressive methods of 309 00:18:53,400 --> 00:18:58,760 Speaker 2: collecting data and very very light on interpreting the data. 310 00:18:58,880 --> 00:19:03,560 Speaker 1: And so the evidence of these so called expert odentologists 311 00:19:03,600 --> 00:19:07,719 Speaker 1: sound strong because of all the jargon and technology, and 312 00:19:07,760 --> 00:19:11,080 Speaker 1: in our society we're told to trust people in white 313 00:19:11,200 --> 00:19:15,080 Speaker 1: lab codes, and these guys, these odentologists, really do appear 314 00:19:15,119 --> 00:19:16,040 Speaker 1: to be experts. 315 00:19:16,320 --> 00:19:18,400 Speaker 2: When an expert witness gets on the stand, they don't 316 00:19:18,400 --> 00:19:21,280 Speaker 2: just start testifying. Right, what's the first thing that they do? 317 00:19:22,280 --> 00:19:22,440 Speaker 3: Right? 318 00:19:22,600 --> 00:19:25,520 Speaker 2: You go through their credentials cvs that are over twenty 319 00:19:25,640 --> 00:19:30,040 Speaker 2: pages long, appearances on sixty minutes presentations at the American 320 00:19:30,080 --> 00:19:34,400 Speaker 2: Academy of Forensic Sciences, This board membership, that board membership. 321 00:19:34,480 --> 00:19:36,040 Speaker 2: The credentials are off the. 322 00:19:36,080 --> 00:19:40,480 Speaker 1: Chain, right, So the jury hears all of these impressive credentials, 323 00:19:40,520 --> 00:19:44,639 Speaker 1: and why should they dispute it, And suddenly they start 324 00:19:44,640 --> 00:19:48,240 Speaker 1: believing that these so called experts must know what they're 325 00:19:48,280 --> 00:19:52,119 Speaker 1: talking about, that they're presenting solid scientific fact. 326 00:19:52,440 --> 00:19:56,320 Speaker 2: It takes a very very critical thinker and an independent 327 00:19:56,400 --> 00:20:00,879 Speaker 2: thinker not to be lulled into a a sense of, 328 00:20:01,760 --> 00:20:05,880 Speaker 2: you know, abdicating your responsibility. And there's always two strikes 329 00:20:05,880 --> 00:20:09,439 Speaker 2: against any defendant that walks into criminal court and is 330 00:20:09,480 --> 00:20:11,040 Speaker 2: on trial. You know, most of the people in the 331 00:20:11,080 --> 00:20:14,359 Speaker 2: courtroom believe that he or she is guilty already. The 332 00:20:14,440 --> 00:20:18,400 Speaker 2: bias that most Americans walk into court with with the 333 00:20:18,440 --> 00:20:22,080 Speaker 2: idea that the person that is on trial is guilty 334 00:20:22,119 --> 00:20:22,600 Speaker 2: as charged. 335 00:20:22,720 --> 00:20:27,679 Speaker 1: Chris, I've heard of so many convictions where bitemark evidence 336 00:20:28,480 --> 00:20:33,440 Speaker 1: was used to gain the conviction and it was later 337 00:20:33,520 --> 00:20:37,040 Speaker 1: proven that the injuries weren't even human bites at all. 338 00:20:37,119 --> 00:20:41,080 Speaker 1: They were things like insect bites and animal bites or 339 00:20:42,040 --> 00:20:44,000 Speaker 1: bruises something else entirely. 340 00:20:44,480 --> 00:20:49,400 Speaker 2: One of the fundamental claims by bitemark experts, these forensic dentists, 341 00:20:50,320 --> 00:20:54,280 Speaker 2: is that they, through their training and experience, have the 342 00:20:54,320 --> 00:20:58,720 Speaker 2: ability to discern a human bitemark from other types of injuries. 343 00:21:00,080 --> 00:21:03,399 Speaker 2: Can say in science is that if experts look at 344 00:21:03,400 --> 00:21:06,800 Speaker 2: the same evidence and largely come to similar the same conclusions, 345 00:21:06,880 --> 00:21:11,000 Speaker 2: there's some reliability in the technique. And there was a 346 00:21:11,040 --> 00:21:15,280 Speaker 2: study that was done about four years ago, and what 347 00:21:15,400 --> 00:21:18,960 Speaker 2: this was was a survey of the self identified top 348 00:21:19,000 --> 00:21:21,280 Speaker 2: A forensic dentists in the country. It was about forty 349 00:21:21,320 --> 00:21:23,560 Speaker 2: of them, and they did a survey of one hundred 350 00:21:23,560 --> 00:21:26,159 Speaker 2: different injuries and they wanted to see if there are 351 00:21:26,240 --> 00:21:27,879 Speaker 2: inter radar reliability. 352 00:21:28,200 --> 00:21:30,840 Speaker 1: So when a bunch of odentologists looked at different kinds 353 00:21:30,880 --> 00:21:33,960 Speaker 1: of injuries, did they agree about whether or not they 354 00:21:33,960 --> 00:21:36,159 Speaker 1: were looking at photographs of human bite marks. 355 00:21:36,800 --> 00:21:40,680 Speaker 2: These top bitemark experts in the country, they were all 356 00:21:40,720 --> 00:21:43,600 Speaker 2: over the place. So even just as a threshold matter, 357 00:21:44,280 --> 00:21:46,520 Speaker 2: as we're talking about what's a bitemark and what is 358 00:21:46,560 --> 00:21:49,600 Speaker 2: in a bite mark, it's junk science at that level too. 359 00:21:50,440 --> 00:21:52,520 Speaker 1: This study should have been the end of bite mark 360 00:21:52,560 --> 00:21:55,240 Speaker 1: evidence and courtrooms in this country, right, I mean, why 361 00:21:55,440 --> 00:21:56,120 Speaker 1: wasn't it? 362 00:21:56,119 --> 00:21:57,680 Speaker 2: It depends on really, you know, do you want the 363 00:21:57,720 --> 00:21:59,680 Speaker 2: cynical answer or do you want the long term answer. 364 00:21:59,720 --> 00:22:02,879 Speaker 2: Thisical answer is that courts don't care. Any tool that 365 00:22:03,720 --> 00:22:09,320 Speaker 2: is used successfully to prosecute indigent defendants in our criminal 366 00:22:09,440 --> 00:22:13,679 Speaker 2: justice system is almost always going to be available to 367 00:22:13,720 --> 00:22:17,639 Speaker 2: the prosecution and continue to be available to the prosecution 368 00:22:18,080 --> 00:22:20,320 Speaker 2: once it's become amissible in the first place, and it's 369 00:22:20,359 --> 00:22:23,480 Speaker 2: almost impossible to unwind it and to walk back all 370 00:22:23,480 --> 00:22:26,480 Speaker 2: that legal precedent. The prosecutors have a duty to do justice, 371 00:22:26,480 --> 00:22:29,480 Speaker 2: and that part of that should be never using unreliable 372 00:22:29,560 --> 00:22:30,520 Speaker 2: evidence in the case. 373 00:22:30,560 --> 00:22:31,760 Speaker 3: But that's not the way it's done. 374 00:22:31,840 --> 00:22:34,080 Speaker 2: Once it's amissible, the prosecutors are going to continue to 375 00:22:34,119 --> 00:22:37,120 Speaker 2: fight for its admissibility because it's useful to get convictions. 376 00:22:37,560 --> 00:22:41,680 Speaker 1: Right. The prosecutor who says, you know what, I feel 377 00:22:41,760 --> 00:22:45,440 Speaker 1: uncomfortable presenting a case that is built on junk science 378 00:22:46,200 --> 00:22:51,040 Speaker 1: is unfortunately the exception to the rule, and a very 379 00:22:51,119 --> 00:22:54,680 Speaker 1: rare exception at that. And I think what our listeners 380 00:22:54,720 --> 00:22:59,240 Speaker 1: need to understand is that prosecutors are often told go 381 00:22:59,320 --> 00:23:02,840 Speaker 1: get a convict, and what matters to them is the win, 382 00:23:03,600 --> 00:23:08,440 Speaker 1: and the mentality is when it all costs, even if 383 00:23:08,480 --> 00:23:16,240 Speaker 1: it means presenting information that is known to be unscientific, unreliable, unsubstantiated, 384 00:23:16,640 --> 00:23:33,959 Speaker 1: including bitemark evidence. At the beginning of this episode, I 385 00:23:34,000 --> 00:23:38,000 Speaker 1: asked you to imagine yourself accused of a murder. The 386 00:23:38,119 --> 00:23:42,080 Speaker 1: victim had bite marks all over their body. The prosecution 387 00:23:42,359 --> 00:23:46,120 Speaker 1: brought out a parade of experts. They presented what sounded 388 00:23:46,200 --> 00:23:52,160 Speaker 1: like unimpeachable scientific fact. You're sitting there knowing that you're innocent, 389 00:23:52,840 --> 00:23:56,119 Speaker 1: Yet these so called facts about bitemarks are being used 390 00:23:56,160 --> 00:24:01,160 Speaker 1: to turn a jury against you. These sports are still 391 00:24:01,200 --> 00:24:05,480 Speaker 1: being used to wrongly convict people all over the country. 392 00:24:06,560 --> 00:24:09,800 Speaker 1: There are people sitting on death row right now whose 393 00:24:09,880 --> 00:24:13,360 Speaker 1: cases are based on the junk science of bitemark evidence. 394 00:24:14,280 --> 00:24:17,880 Speaker 1: The good news is that lawyers like Chris Fabricaon are 395 00:24:17,920 --> 00:24:21,199 Speaker 1: working with the Innocence Project to overturned cases that are 396 00:24:21,240 --> 00:24:22,640 Speaker 1: based on bitemark evidence. 397 00:24:23,119 --> 00:24:27,240 Speaker 2: Our objectives were was to eliminate the use of bitemark 398 00:24:27,280 --> 00:24:30,479 Speaker 2: evidence generally, which you know, sadly we still have an 399 00:24:30,480 --> 00:24:33,640 Speaker 2: accomplished that goal, but also to find the many, many 400 00:24:33,760 --> 00:24:37,080 Speaker 2: victims of this junk science and that are still incarcerated 401 00:24:37,080 --> 00:24:39,359 Speaker 2: around the country. You know, we still have five different 402 00:24:39,440 --> 00:24:41,719 Speaker 2: cases that we're working on right now with people that 403 00:24:41,960 --> 00:24:44,880 Speaker 2: are in prison and on death row. We have two 404 00:24:44,920 --> 00:24:47,879 Speaker 2: death row clients and one case that's about to go 405 00:24:47,920 --> 00:24:51,320 Speaker 2: to trial in another capital case in Pennsylvania that's also 406 00:24:51,640 --> 00:24:53,560 Speaker 2: you know, trying to use bite mark evidence. 407 00:24:54,119 --> 00:24:58,359 Speaker 1: The wheels of justice grind slowly, but there is hope 408 00:24:58,560 --> 00:25:03,119 Speaker 1: Chris's attempt to eliminate bitemark evidence from our criminal justice 409 00:25:03,119 --> 00:25:08,959 Speaker 1: system is indeed paying off. One of Chris's clients, Shila Denton, 410 00:25:09,400 --> 00:25:13,320 Speaker 1: who was wrongfully convicted based on bitemark evidence, was released 411 00:25:13,359 --> 00:25:15,360 Speaker 1: from prison this past April. 412 00:25:15,760 --> 00:25:20,840 Speaker 2: Sheila Denton was convicted fifteen years ago for the homicide 413 00:25:20,920 --> 00:25:25,760 Speaker 2: of a drug dealer in Georgia. The state's theory was 414 00:25:26,119 --> 00:25:29,280 Speaker 2: that Sheila Denton, who was weighed in at about one 415 00:25:29,359 --> 00:25:33,000 Speaker 2: hundred and ten hundred and fifteen pounds, had manually strangled 416 00:25:33,000 --> 00:25:35,680 Speaker 2: this crack dealer who was maybe about one hundred and 417 00:25:35,720 --> 00:25:39,720 Speaker 2: eighty pound man, and there was an injury on her arm, 418 00:25:40,080 --> 00:25:43,520 Speaker 2: and there was an injury on the victim's arm. The 419 00:25:44,240 --> 00:25:46,600 Speaker 2: forensic dentist in the case, a guy named Tom David, 420 00:25:46,720 --> 00:25:50,240 Speaker 2: said it was probable that Sheila Denton had bitten the victim, 421 00:25:50,280 --> 00:25:53,040 Speaker 2: and it was also probable that the victim had bitten 422 00:25:53,080 --> 00:25:56,000 Speaker 2: Sheila Denton, and that was essentially the only evidence in 423 00:25:56,040 --> 00:25:59,040 Speaker 2: the case. So Sheila Denton was fairly quickly convicted. 424 00:25:59,400 --> 00:26:02,320 Speaker 1: But when the case was overturned, Chris was able to 425 00:26:02,359 --> 00:26:05,960 Speaker 1: convince not only the judge but also the odentologists who 426 00:26:06,000 --> 00:26:10,359 Speaker 1: testified for the prosecution, that bitemark evidence is nothing but 427 00:26:10,520 --> 00:26:11,280 Speaker 1: junk science. 428 00:26:11,840 --> 00:26:14,600 Speaker 2: You know, for an expert who drank the kool aid 429 00:26:14,640 --> 00:26:17,320 Speaker 2: for many years and has been declared an expert witness 430 00:26:17,320 --> 00:26:19,040 Speaker 2: in courts around the country and takes a lot of 431 00:26:19,080 --> 00:26:24,040 Speaker 2: personal and professional pride in the forensic identology practice, you know, 432 00:26:24,080 --> 00:26:27,359 Speaker 2: I mean and busting bad guys aspect of their civic 433 00:26:27,440 --> 00:26:31,960 Speaker 2: duties to come to the realization that they were wrong, 434 00:26:32,600 --> 00:26:35,280 Speaker 2: that everything that they had talked about and everything that 435 00:26:35,320 --> 00:26:38,199 Speaker 2: they believed in was bullshit. That's very, very powerful, and 436 00:26:38,240 --> 00:26:42,159 Speaker 2: you need more of that in forensics. 437 00:26:44,680 --> 00:26:48,120 Speaker 1: You might be wondering how you can help besides being 438 00:26:48,119 --> 00:26:52,560 Speaker 1: a more critical and informed jourm The Innocence Projects Policy 439 00:26:52,600 --> 00:26:55,840 Speaker 1: Department works in all fifty states. The pass laws that 440 00:26:55,920 --> 00:27:00,880 Speaker 1: facilitate releasing innocent people from prison and preventing wrong convictions. 441 00:27:01,520 --> 00:27:04,040 Speaker 1: Sign up for their newsletter so you can see the 442 00:27:04,040 --> 00:27:08,000 Speaker 1: policies that are being proposed in your community. There's an 443 00:27:08,040 --> 00:27:11,520 Speaker 1: expression that I like to use in wrongful incarceration cases, 444 00:27:12,160 --> 00:27:17,480 Speaker 1: which is that pressure breaks pipes. These exonerations don't come easy. 445 00:27:18,119 --> 00:27:22,280 Speaker 1: They're usually the result of a grueling fight, and your 446 00:27:22,400 --> 00:27:27,080 Speaker 1: voice matters. What I mean by that is make noise 447 00:27:27,119 --> 00:27:30,560 Speaker 1: about the junk science of bitemark evidence. Write a letter 448 00:27:30,600 --> 00:27:33,760 Speaker 1: to your local criminal court judges about how inaccurate it is. 449 00:27:34,520 --> 00:27:37,760 Speaker 1: Send them articles about its flaws. Write an op ed. 450 00:27:38,640 --> 00:27:42,280 Speaker 1: Judges are human, they can be persuaded, and you have 451 00:27:42,320 --> 00:27:45,640 Speaker 1: the power to help change their minds by speaking up. 452 00:27:46,640 --> 00:27:50,040 Speaker 1: You have learned from this episode how dangerous one case, 453 00:27:50,720 --> 00:27:54,239 Speaker 1: one legal precedent can be in infecting our system of 454 00:27:54,440 --> 00:27:58,200 Speaker 1: justice with junk science. All it takes is one more 455 00:27:58,440 --> 00:28:01,320 Speaker 1: to write that wrong and if you wind up as 456 00:28:01,320 --> 00:28:04,240 Speaker 1: a juror in a criminal case, and you find yourself 457 00:28:04,280 --> 00:28:08,240 Speaker 1: presented with something that is touted as science, ask tough 458 00:28:08,359 --> 00:28:12,280 Speaker 1: questions of your fellow jurors when you're deliberating. Approach it 459 00:28:12,320 --> 00:28:17,080 Speaker 1: with a healthy degree of skepticism. Demand answers to tough questions. 460 00:28:17,560 --> 00:28:21,360 Speaker 1: If something doesn't make sense, Give the defendant the benefit 461 00:28:21,400 --> 00:28:25,080 Speaker 1: of the doubt. After all, isn't that what the presumption 462 00:28:25,119 --> 00:28:29,000 Speaker 1: of innocence is all about. If you do that, if 463 00:28:29,040 --> 00:28:33,359 Speaker 1: you demand real proof beyond a reasonable doubt and it 464 00:28:33,400 --> 00:28:37,680 Speaker 1: doesn't meet that standard, you might just prevent the next 465 00:28:37,680 --> 00:28:47,040 Speaker 1: wrongful conviction. Next week, we'll explore the junk science of 466 00:28:47,120 --> 00:28:51,680 Speaker 1: blood spatter analysis with award winning journalist Pamela Koloff from 467 00:28:51,720 --> 00:28:54,920 Speaker 1: pro Publica and The New York Times. Pam has written 468 00:28:54,920 --> 00:28:58,720 Speaker 1: extensively about this kind of evidence. As part of her research, 469 00:28:58,880 --> 00:29:05,680 Speaker 1: she actually became I'm a certified blood spatter analyst. Wrongful 470 00:29:05,680 --> 00:29:08,400 Speaker 1: Conviction Junk Science is a production of Lava for Good 471 00:29:08,480 --> 00:29:12,560 Speaker 1: Podcasts and association with Signal Company Number One. Thanks to 472 00:29:12,600 --> 00:29:15,640 Speaker 1: our executive producer Jason Flam and the team at Signal 473 00:29:15,680 --> 00:29:20,120 Speaker 1: Company number One, Executive producer Kevin Wardis and senior producers 474 00:29:20,200 --> 00:29:24,200 Speaker 1: Karen Kornhaber and Brit Spangler. Our music was composed by 475 00:29:24,280 --> 00:29:28,440 Speaker 1: Jay Ralph. You can follow me on Instagram at dubin Josh. 476 00:29:28,800 --> 00:29:32,720 Speaker 1: Follow the Wrongful Conviction podcast on Facebook and on Instagram 477 00:29:32,760 --> 00:29:36,120 Speaker 1: at Wrongful Conviction, and on Twitter at wrong Conviction