1 00:00:01,800 --> 00:00:04,520 Speaker 1: Hey, folks, Kate Judson here, I'm a lawyer and the 2 00:00:04,559 --> 00:00:08,119 Speaker 1: executive director of the Center for Integrity and Forensic Sciences. 3 00:00:09,480 --> 00:00:12,399 Speaker 1: We're back with an episode of Junk Science, a series 4 00:00:12,440 --> 00:00:16,400 Speaker 1: we first released in twenty twenty. Each episode highlights ways 5 00:00:16,640 --> 00:00:21,119 Speaker 1: that inaccurate or misinterpreted forensics can result in a wrongful conviction. 6 00:00:22,160 --> 00:00:26,079 Speaker 1: This week's episode focuses on bitemark evidence, a forensic specialty 7 00:00:26,120 --> 00:00:29,000 Speaker 1: that is thankfully falling out of favor as more and 8 00:00:29,080 --> 00:00:32,800 Speaker 1: more courts realize its shortcomings. But that doesn't mean that 9 00:00:32,840 --> 00:00:36,000 Speaker 1: it's totally gone or that the legal system doesn't still 10 00:00:36,040 --> 00:00:42,159 Speaker 1: feel its influence. To me and others familiar with bitemark evidence, 11 00:00:42,240 --> 00:00:45,720 Speaker 1: the name doctor Michael West will ring some bells. He's 12 00:00:45,760 --> 00:00:49,360 Speaker 1: an infamous bitemark analyst whose questionable assertions in court have 13 00:00:49,479 --> 00:00:52,920 Speaker 1: led to many wrongful convictions. He claimed that he could 14 00:00:52,960 --> 00:00:56,240 Speaker 1: find bitemarks and other marks on skin that no one 15 00:00:56,240 --> 00:01:00,320 Speaker 1: else could find using alternative light source photography, thing that 16 00:01:00,400 --> 00:01:05,160 Speaker 1: is unsupported by scientific evidence. This concept is another dimension 17 00:01:05,319 --> 00:01:08,679 Speaker 1: of what you'll hear discussed in this episode that increasingly 18 00:01:08,720 --> 00:01:13,560 Speaker 1: sophisticated methods of evidence collection don't do a thing to 19 00:01:13,760 --> 00:01:20,840 Speaker 1: ensure accurate interpretation. Only By revealing and changing the underlying 20 00:01:20,920 --> 00:01:31,080 Speaker 1: systemic problems, can we ensure reliability. 21 00:01:31,880 --> 00:01:36,080 Speaker 2: Imagine this. You're at your house. You're standing at the 22 00:01:36,120 --> 00:01:39,479 Speaker 2: stove making dinner. You hear a knock at the door. 23 00:01:40,360 --> 00:01:44,640 Speaker 2: It's the police. They ask you your name. They've been 24 00:01:44,680 --> 00:01:48,200 Speaker 2: looking for you. The first thing you think is, oh, no, 25 00:01:48,840 --> 00:01:51,440 Speaker 2: something must have happened to a friend or someone in 26 00:01:51,480 --> 00:01:55,840 Speaker 2: my family. An officer looks you in the eye. They 27 00:01:55,880 --> 00:01:59,880 Speaker 2: need to ask you some questions. What is it? What happened? 28 00:02:01,280 --> 00:02:03,680 Speaker 2: They won't tell you. You'll need to go down to 29 00:02:03,760 --> 00:02:07,040 Speaker 2: the police station. You agree to go with them, and 30 00:02:07,120 --> 00:02:12,400 Speaker 2: you ask them over and over what's the problem. You're 31 00:02:12,440 --> 00:02:16,000 Speaker 2: putting a small windowless room and you're very anxious, and 32 00:02:16,040 --> 00:02:21,000 Speaker 2: you're told you wait here. Two plain closed detectives eventually 33 00:02:21,040 --> 00:02:24,120 Speaker 2: come in. One sits across from you, or a rickety 34 00:02:24,160 --> 00:02:27,240 Speaker 2: table separates you from him. The other comes to your 35 00:02:27,320 --> 00:02:29,960 Speaker 2: side of the table and he sits so close to 36 00:02:30,000 --> 00:02:34,400 Speaker 2: you that his knee is touching yours. He quickly begins 37 00:02:34,400 --> 00:02:39,000 Speaker 2: accusing you of raping and murdering someone. He says a 38 00:02:39,080 --> 00:02:43,120 Speaker 2: name that you recognize. It's your ex who you haven't 39 00:02:43,120 --> 00:02:47,680 Speaker 2: been in contact with for years. The one sitting closest 40 00:02:47,680 --> 00:02:50,200 Speaker 2: to you, tells you the murder happened last night and 41 00:02:50,240 --> 00:02:52,560 Speaker 2: that the only way you can help yourself is to 42 00:02:52,720 --> 00:02:55,440 Speaker 2: just admit what you did. He asked you where you 43 00:02:55,480 --> 00:02:58,760 Speaker 2: were yesterday. At first, it's not easy to remember the 44 00:02:58,840 --> 00:03:02,480 Speaker 2: mundane details of the past day. You were just told 45 00:03:02,520 --> 00:03:05,720 Speaker 2: that your ex was murdered. But you take a deep 46 00:03:05,760 --> 00:03:09,320 Speaker 2: breath and you try to focus. You were at work 47 00:03:09,360 --> 00:03:11,760 Speaker 2: all day. On your way home, you went to the 48 00:03:11,800 --> 00:03:14,840 Speaker 2: grocery store. Then you stopped and had a bureau with 49 00:03:14,919 --> 00:03:17,720 Speaker 2: some friends at a local bar. Then you got gas 50 00:03:18,560 --> 00:03:21,280 Speaker 2: at the gas station. You ran into one of your neighbors. 51 00:03:21,720 --> 00:03:25,600 Speaker 2: You can remember sitting there across from those detectives at 52 00:03:25,720 --> 00:03:30,359 Speaker 2: least nine alibi witnesses. You tell this to the detectives, 53 00:03:30,639 --> 00:03:33,680 Speaker 2: and this gets them even more pissed. They say, look, 54 00:03:34,040 --> 00:03:37,120 Speaker 2: we don't believe you. We know you killed this woman. 55 00:03:38,400 --> 00:03:40,800 Speaker 2: They tell you that the victim has bite marks all 56 00:03:40,800 --> 00:03:44,280 Speaker 2: over her neck, on her shoulder, her inner thigh, and 57 00:03:44,280 --> 00:03:47,320 Speaker 2: her arm. They tell you that the killer left those 58 00:03:47,360 --> 00:03:51,040 Speaker 2: bite marks that they can determine who committed this crime 59 00:03:51,320 --> 00:03:54,240 Speaker 2: just by taking a dental impression of their teeth and 60 00:03:54,320 --> 00:03:57,640 Speaker 2: matching it to the bite marks on the victim. And 61 00:03:57,720 --> 00:04:00,160 Speaker 2: if you're so innocent, they say, if this is there's 62 00:04:00,200 --> 00:04:02,560 Speaker 2: some big mix up and you didn't really do this, 63 00:04:03,080 --> 00:04:06,480 Speaker 2: let us just take an impression of your teeth. Fine, 64 00:04:06,800 --> 00:04:11,520 Speaker 2: let's do it. After more forceful accusations, they let you 65 00:04:11,600 --> 00:04:15,960 Speaker 2: sit there, and sit there, and sit there. A few 66 00:04:16,000 --> 00:04:18,760 Speaker 2: hours later, they send a man into the room wearing 67 00:04:18,800 --> 00:04:21,880 Speaker 2: a white lab coat, and he certainly looks the part 68 00:04:21,880 --> 00:04:25,360 Speaker 2: of a dentist. He takes out two metal bite plates 69 00:04:25,720 --> 00:04:29,600 Speaker 2: and fills them with a silly putty like substance. He 70 00:04:29,640 --> 00:04:32,960 Speaker 2: pushes these cold trays into your mouth and tells you 71 00:04:33,000 --> 00:04:37,120 Speaker 2: to bite down. The putty tastes like plastic. It hugs 72 00:04:37,120 --> 00:04:41,080 Speaker 2: your teeth, then quickly firms up and drives. Then it's 73 00:04:41,080 --> 00:04:43,680 Speaker 2: pulled from your mouth and there is a perfect impression. 74 00:04:45,040 --> 00:04:47,560 Speaker 2: The cops come back in and they tell you can 75 00:04:47,640 --> 00:04:51,120 Speaker 2: leave the police station, but they also tell you you're not 76 00:04:51,160 --> 00:04:55,880 Speaker 2: to leave town. Three sleepless nights later, you're at your house, 77 00:04:56,200 --> 00:04:59,440 Speaker 2: laying awake in bed, and you're really overcome by anxiety. 78 00:05:00,240 --> 00:05:03,440 Speaker 2: You're wondering, do I need an attorney or does that 79 00:05:03,480 --> 00:05:05,920 Speaker 2: make it look like I may have actually done something wrong? 80 00:05:06,560 --> 00:05:08,600 Speaker 2: How do I act what am I supposed to do? 81 00:05:09,760 --> 00:05:15,440 Speaker 2: And then your dog starts barking. This time they don't knock. 82 00:05:16,960 --> 00:05:19,919 Speaker 2: Your front door is blown off its hinges by a 83 00:05:19,960 --> 00:05:23,240 Speaker 2: swat team, and before you know what's happening, you are 84 00:05:23,279 --> 00:05:26,320 Speaker 2: on the ground. You can clearly hear one of these 85 00:05:26,360 --> 00:05:31,159 Speaker 2: cops yell at you don't fucking move. Your face is 86 00:05:31,200 --> 00:05:35,480 Speaker 2: being pushed into the carpet. You're being handcuffed. You're told 87 00:05:35,520 --> 00:05:37,880 Speaker 2: you're being charged with the rape and murder of your 88 00:05:37,920 --> 00:05:42,040 Speaker 2: ex who you haven't seen or spoken to in years. 89 00:05:45,760 --> 00:05:49,400 Speaker 2: At your trial, the prosecution gets two experts in bite marks, 90 00:05:49,440 --> 00:05:53,600 Speaker 2: called odentologists, an impressive sounding title for a forensic dentist, 91 00:05:54,240 --> 00:05:57,760 Speaker 2: and they explain how the ridges, angles, peaks, and valleys 92 00:05:57,800 --> 00:06:02,000 Speaker 2: of your teeth, these unique characteristics, perfectly matched with the 93 00:06:02,000 --> 00:06:05,479 Speaker 2: bite marks on the victim. They say things to the 94 00:06:05,560 --> 00:06:09,240 Speaker 2: jury that sound really impressive. There's a one in a 95 00:06:09,279 --> 00:06:11,960 Speaker 2: million chances that these bite marks are anyone else's but 96 00:06:12,120 --> 00:06:15,159 Speaker 2: the defendants, they say, and we know that to a 97 00:06:15,240 --> 00:06:22,720 Speaker 2: degree of scientific certainty. The jury seems to be completely 98 00:06:22,960 --> 00:06:26,919 Speaker 2: buying this, and why not? It all sounds so rational, 99 00:06:27,320 --> 00:06:34,400 Speaker 2: so infallible. You're thinking, I'm really screwtier but you know 100 00:06:34,520 --> 00:06:41,480 Speaker 2: you're innocent. Countless innocent men and women have lived this 101 00:06:41,560 --> 00:06:47,520 Speaker 2: horrific nightmare. Their wrongful convictions are based on evidence presented 102 00:06:47,560 --> 00:06:53,240 Speaker 2: by odentologists, the quote unquote scientific experts and bite mark evidence. 103 00:06:56,880 --> 00:07:00,600 Speaker 2: I'm Josh Duben, civil rights and criminal defense attorney, an 104 00:07:00,600 --> 00:07:04,440 Speaker 2: innocent ambassador to the Innocence Project in New York. Today 105 00:07:04,640 --> 00:07:08,800 Speaker 2: on wrongful conviction junk science, We're going to explore bitemark evidence. 106 00:07:10,560 --> 00:07:13,240 Speaker 2: Like other forms of junk science used in criminal trials, 107 00:07:13,880 --> 00:07:17,679 Speaker 2: bitemark evidence does not benefit crime victims or their loved ones, 108 00:07:18,360 --> 00:07:21,840 Speaker 2: So why is it treated like credible science. It turns 109 00:07:21,880 --> 00:07:25,920 Speaker 2: out that the charade of bitemark evidence is actually older 110 00:07:25,960 --> 00:07:41,080 Speaker 2: than the United States. On April thirtieth, sixteen ninety two, 111 00:07:41,400 --> 00:07:44,400 Speaker 2: a reverend by the name of George Burrows was arrested 112 00:07:44,480 --> 00:07:48,160 Speaker 2: and accused of torturing young women into witchcraft. It was 113 00:07:48,200 --> 00:07:51,200 Speaker 2: alleged that it would inflict various forms of physical harm 114 00:07:51,200 --> 00:07:56,680 Speaker 2: on them, pinching, strangling, and yes, biting them. The evidence 115 00:07:56,680 --> 00:08:01,200 Speaker 2: against Burrows was really thin, but the only physical evidence 116 00:08:01,360 --> 00:08:04,680 Speaker 2: where the alleged bitemarks that the prosecution claimed his teeth 117 00:08:05,040 --> 00:08:08,840 Speaker 2: left on the flesh of his victims at his trial, 118 00:08:09,120 --> 00:08:11,840 Speaker 2: Reverend Burroughs was pulled by the face around the courtroom 119 00:08:12,000 --> 00:08:15,960 Speaker 2: and his mouth was pride open. A stick was used 120 00:08:15,960 --> 00:08:20,080 Speaker 2: to point out the unique characteristics of Burrow's teeth, the peaks, 121 00:08:20,320 --> 00:08:23,720 Speaker 2: the angles of his molars, and then they were compared 122 00:08:23,760 --> 00:08:25,840 Speaker 2: to what the court was told were bite marks on 123 00:08:25,880 --> 00:08:31,240 Speaker 2: the young girls. Burrows was convicted and publicly hanged. While 124 00:08:31,280 --> 00:08:33,320 Speaker 2: he stood on a ladder awaiting the tightening of a 125 00:08:33,360 --> 00:08:37,760 Speaker 2: noose around his neck, he prayed. He recited the Lord's Prayer, 126 00:08:37,920 --> 00:08:41,280 Speaker 2: and a collective gasp, like a creeping wave, rolled through 127 00:08:41,320 --> 00:08:44,360 Speaker 2: the crowd that had gathered to watch his hanging. Because 128 00:08:44,360 --> 00:08:49,920 Speaker 2: the Lord's Prayer was considered impossible for a witch, and 129 00:08:50,000 --> 00:08:55,440 Speaker 2: so bitemark evidence was born in the bloodthirsty hysteria of 130 00:08:55,520 --> 00:09:00,760 Speaker 2: the Salem witch trials, Burrow's recitation of the Lord's Prayer 131 00:09:01,000 --> 00:09:03,679 Speaker 2: should have been a sign that something was wrong with 132 00:09:03,720 --> 00:09:07,520 Speaker 2: his conviction, that he wasn't a witch after all, Because 133 00:09:07,559 --> 00:09:11,160 Speaker 2: it turns out the angry, frenzied mob that was so 134 00:09:11,280 --> 00:09:15,559 Speaker 2: quick to accuse, convict, and hang George Burrows had in 135 00:09:15,559 --> 00:09:20,280 Speaker 2: fact executed an innocent man. Twenty years after he was 136 00:09:20,320 --> 00:09:24,520 Speaker 2: put to death, George Burrows was declared innocent. He was 137 00:09:24,559 --> 00:09:27,960 Speaker 2: in another town altogether on the knights that the victims 138 00:09:27,960 --> 00:09:32,480 Speaker 2: were allegedly tortured. George Burrows hadn't beten anyone at all. 139 00:09:33,280 --> 00:09:36,240 Speaker 2: That entire show that was put on in that courtroom, 140 00:09:36,520 --> 00:09:39,560 Speaker 2: the circus of forcing his mouth open was nothing more 141 00:09:39,800 --> 00:09:45,280 Speaker 2: than performance masquerading as signs. And yet bite mark evidence 142 00:09:45,400 --> 00:09:49,000 Speaker 2: is still being used in courtrooms across the country to 143 00:09:49,120 --> 00:09:52,520 Speaker 2: convict innocent people of crimes they did not commit. 144 00:09:54,440 --> 00:09:58,280 Speaker 3: Every single case that my department has gotten involved in 145 00:09:58,360 --> 00:10:00,920 Speaker 3: has ended up in reversal of the conviction, or exclusion 146 00:10:00,960 --> 00:10:03,480 Speaker 3: of the evidence, or withdrawal of the evidence because it's 147 00:10:03,480 --> 00:10:04,720 Speaker 3: so grossly unreliable. 148 00:10:05,600 --> 00:10:08,160 Speaker 2: To tell us more about bitemark evidence, we have Chris 149 00:10:08,200 --> 00:10:12,120 Speaker 2: Fabricn from the Innocence Project here with us today. Throughout 150 00:10:12,120 --> 00:10:15,000 Speaker 2: his twenty year legal career, Chris has worked on countless 151 00:10:15,040 --> 00:10:18,080 Speaker 2: cases in which innocent men and women spent decades in 152 00:10:18,120 --> 00:10:20,360 Speaker 2: prison because of bitemark evidence. 153 00:10:20,800 --> 00:10:25,040 Speaker 3: We at the Innocence Project had an agenda about eliminating 154 00:10:25,080 --> 00:10:27,400 Speaker 3: the use of bitemark evidence in criminal trials. 155 00:10:28,280 --> 00:10:32,240 Speaker 2: Chris, there's a case from the nineteen seventies, the People 156 00:10:32,360 --> 00:10:35,560 Speaker 2: versus Marx, which I believe is the first modern instance 157 00:10:35,600 --> 00:10:40,240 Speaker 2: of a bitemark on human skin being presented as evidence. 158 00:10:40,880 --> 00:10:42,520 Speaker 2: Can you tell us about this case? 159 00:10:42,960 --> 00:10:47,720 Speaker 3: So, Walter Marx was a weekend tenant of a woman 160 00:10:47,840 --> 00:10:51,400 Speaker 3: named Lovey Brazanski, and so the first time since he 161 00:10:51,440 --> 00:10:53,800 Speaker 3: had had this lease, he did not spend the night 162 00:10:54,080 --> 00:10:58,080 Speaker 3: on the weekend, and that same weekend the murder victim 163 00:10:58,200 --> 00:11:02,400 Speaker 3: turned up dead. Police discouvers the body on Sunday afternoon, 164 00:11:02,440 --> 00:11:08,960 Speaker 3: and they noticed that the victims nose had been indelicately 165 00:11:09,040 --> 00:11:14,280 Speaker 3: put bitten off, and the cartilage of the nose on 166 00:11:14,360 --> 00:11:17,120 Speaker 3: the victim's face had left the impression of what appeared 167 00:11:17,160 --> 00:11:20,040 Speaker 3: to be tooth marks. Mister Marx looked good for it, 168 00:11:20,080 --> 00:11:22,400 Speaker 3: but there wasn't really any evidence apart from the fact 169 00:11:22,440 --> 00:11:26,160 Speaker 3: that he didn't show up for his usual weekend stay. 170 00:11:27,000 --> 00:11:30,960 Speaker 3: So there was a group of dentists who had had 171 00:11:31,000 --> 00:11:34,560 Speaker 3: some history with identifying human bodies through dental records, which 172 00:11:34,559 --> 00:11:38,480 Speaker 3: is a totally different, unrelated subdiscipline of forensic dentistry. But 173 00:11:38,559 --> 00:11:42,959 Speaker 3: they had had some interest in bitemark evidence and had 174 00:11:43,000 --> 00:11:46,199 Speaker 3: been kind of looking for the right case to essentially 175 00:11:46,240 --> 00:11:50,280 Speaker 3: try this out. And interestingly, mister Mark spent four months 176 00:11:50,320 --> 00:11:54,000 Speaker 3: in jail on a contempt charge resisting the court order 177 00:11:54,160 --> 00:11:57,320 Speaker 3: to have a mold taken of his teeth. Eventually he 178 00:11:57,360 --> 00:11:59,680 Speaker 3: gave up and allowed the mold to be taken. 179 00:12:00,120 --> 00:12:03,560 Speaker 2: Now, let me stop you. There didn't like six or 180 00:12:03,720 --> 00:12:06,760 Speaker 2: eight weeks pass before they were able to compare the 181 00:12:06,800 --> 00:12:10,520 Speaker 2: impression on Walter Mark's teeth to the victim. And hadn't 182 00:12:10,520 --> 00:12:13,240 Speaker 2: she already been buried and they had to exhume her body? 183 00:12:14,160 --> 00:12:14,400 Speaker 4: Yeah. 184 00:12:14,520 --> 00:12:17,880 Speaker 3: You know what's interesting about that is that they still 185 00:12:17,920 --> 00:12:21,760 Speaker 3: do exclamations and do that type of powdern matching today. 186 00:12:22,280 --> 00:12:25,480 Speaker 2: Doesn't common sense just dictate that when you bury a 187 00:12:25,559 --> 00:12:30,679 Speaker 2: human body, the skin changes, it starts to wear and decompose. 188 00:12:31,320 --> 00:12:35,080 Speaker 2: It just seems like intuitive that if there was a 189 00:12:35,120 --> 00:12:38,360 Speaker 2: bite mark and you actually could compare a teeth to it, 190 00:12:38,400 --> 00:12:41,280 Speaker 2: that it wouldn't be, you know, worth anything to make 191 00:12:41,280 --> 00:12:44,440 Speaker 2: that comparison after a body had been buried for that long. 192 00:12:45,320 --> 00:12:46,319 Speaker 4: Yeah, precisely right. 193 00:12:46,400 --> 00:12:48,679 Speaker 3: You're asking the critical questions that no court in the 194 00:12:48,720 --> 00:12:52,199 Speaker 3: country asked for forty years, State after state after state 195 00:12:52,280 --> 00:12:55,920 Speaker 3: after state cite it back to the Walter Marx decision 196 00:12:56,240 --> 00:12:59,440 Speaker 3: as evidence of not just that it's amissibility, but if 197 00:12:59,440 --> 00:13:02,000 Speaker 3: it's signed tipic reliability. 198 00:13:02,360 --> 00:13:05,920 Speaker 2: This becomes the precedent. This becomes well, hey, bite mark 199 00:13:05,960 --> 00:13:09,079 Speaker 2: evidence was accepted in the Marx case, you should accept 200 00:13:09,080 --> 00:13:11,040 Speaker 2: it here, and all of a sudden, it just starts 201 00:13:11,080 --> 00:13:13,920 Speaker 2: to get accepted. How is that even possible? 202 00:13:14,320 --> 00:13:15,160 Speaker 4: Because it worked. 203 00:13:15,320 --> 00:13:18,400 Speaker 3: You know, the criminal justice system is an efficient, eating 204 00:13:18,400 --> 00:13:22,040 Speaker 3: and killing machine of largely poor people of color, and 205 00:13:22,120 --> 00:13:27,480 Speaker 3: whatever facilitates that process, it's going to be used as 206 00:13:27,480 --> 00:13:30,880 Speaker 3: long as courts admitted and bite mark evidence was introduced 207 00:13:30,880 --> 00:13:34,120 Speaker 3: as evidence. The court admitted it, it got upheld on appeal, 208 00:13:34,200 --> 00:13:35,080 Speaker 3: so it was good to go. 209 00:13:35,440 --> 00:13:38,760 Speaker 2: So bite mark evidence was officially accepted in the Marx 210 00:13:38,840 --> 00:13:42,560 Speaker 2: case and now it has been ingested, if you will, 211 00:13:43,000 --> 00:13:47,360 Speaker 2: into the criminal justice system. But it became acceptable to 212 00:13:47,480 --> 00:13:50,760 Speaker 2: the general public because of the Ted Bundy case. 213 00:13:50,559 --> 00:13:51,880 Speaker 4: Right, yeah, you know. 214 00:13:51,920 --> 00:13:54,200 Speaker 3: I mean I sometimes say that Ted Bundy ended up 215 00:13:54,240 --> 00:13:57,880 Speaker 3: having many more posthumous victims than any other serial killer 216 00:13:58,120 --> 00:14:00,959 Speaker 3: that we can be aware of, because that his trial 217 00:14:01,040 --> 00:14:03,160 Speaker 3: led to the widespread use of bite mark evidence all 218 00:14:03,160 --> 00:14:03,960 Speaker 3: over the country. 219 00:14:04,559 --> 00:14:06,880 Speaker 2: So for those of our listeners who don't know, but 220 00:14:07,240 --> 00:14:09,240 Speaker 2: I feel like it's safe to say, most dude, Ted 221 00:14:09,240 --> 00:14:13,160 Speaker 2: Bundy was one of the most infamous serial killers in 222 00:14:13,320 --> 00:14:17,679 Speaker 2: US history, and his murder trial was actually the first 223 00:14:17,679 --> 00:14:22,000 Speaker 2: criminal trial to ever be televised in the United States. Now, 224 00:14:22,240 --> 00:14:28,160 Speaker 2: there was overwhelming evidence that proved Bundy was guilty of killing, raping, 225 00:14:28,240 --> 00:14:33,080 Speaker 2: and torturing these young women from Florida State University. And 226 00:14:33,160 --> 00:14:37,080 Speaker 2: they had eyewitnessed testimony of him, you know, comings in 227 00:14:37,160 --> 00:14:41,320 Speaker 2: the murder scene, leaving the murder scene. They had things 228 00:14:41,320 --> 00:14:43,640 Speaker 2: that he had stolen from the homes of these women. 229 00:14:44,080 --> 00:14:46,760 Speaker 2: And there was sort of like a beltz in suspenders 230 00:14:46,840 --> 00:14:50,000 Speaker 2: moment where they wanted to make sure they did everything 231 00:14:50,080 --> 00:14:53,680 Speaker 2: they could to prove his guilt. And they spent two 232 00:14:53,720 --> 00:14:59,280 Speaker 2: full days presenting this bitemark testimony in the case. Why 233 00:14:59,320 --> 00:15:01,120 Speaker 2: do you think that it is, Chris. 234 00:15:00,920 --> 00:15:04,880 Speaker 3: People are hungry for every piece of news they could 235 00:15:04,920 --> 00:15:06,200 Speaker 3: possibly get about Ted Bundy. 236 00:15:06,200 --> 00:15:07,760 Speaker 4: Everybody believed he's guilty. 237 00:15:08,080 --> 00:15:10,440 Speaker 3: The only physical evidence in that case was the bitemark, 238 00:15:11,120 --> 00:15:13,320 Speaker 3: so it was touted as you know, bite marks are 239 00:15:13,320 --> 00:15:15,680 Speaker 3: the thing that finally brought Bundy down. And after Ted 240 00:15:15,720 --> 00:15:19,080 Speaker 3: Bundy was convicted and using bitemark evidence that really just 241 00:15:19,160 --> 00:15:39,000 Speaker 3: exploded all over the country. 242 00:15:39,160 --> 00:15:44,040 Speaker 2: There's something about teeth and dentists that gets associated with reliability, right, 243 00:15:44,080 --> 00:15:48,000 Speaker 2: I mean, we've all heard about dental records being used 244 00:15:48,000 --> 00:15:54,240 Speaker 2: to identify crime victims accident victims, and that sign seems 245 00:15:54,240 --> 00:15:57,120 Speaker 2: to be real, But that's very different from saying that 246 00:15:57,320 --> 00:16:01,200 Speaker 2: a bitemark can be used to identified the person that 247 00:16:01,560 --> 00:16:02,280 Speaker 2: did the biting. 248 00:16:02,440 --> 00:16:06,320 Speaker 3: Right, The identification of human remains through dental records is 249 00:16:06,360 --> 00:16:09,880 Speaker 3: kind of a trojan horse for the forensic dentistry crowd 250 00:16:09,920 --> 00:16:14,240 Speaker 3: to get into court on bitemark evidence, and I've seen 251 00:16:14,280 --> 00:16:19,400 Speaker 3: it firsthand in lots of dentists. Conflating these two subdisciplines 252 00:16:19,520 --> 00:16:22,480 Speaker 3: is the same thing. You identify people by their teeth, 253 00:16:22,840 --> 00:16:26,200 Speaker 3: and you identify people by the bite marks those teeth make, 254 00:16:26,880 --> 00:16:29,360 Speaker 3: and that kind of makes sense until you actually think 255 00:16:29,400 --> 00:16:32,240 Speaker 3: about it. The two techniques have nothing whatsoever to do 256 00:16:32,360 --> 00:16:32,960 Speaker 3: with each other. 257 00:16:33,400 --> 00:16:37,560 Speaker 2: So why doesn't bitemark evidence work? Why isn't it reliable? 258 00:16:38,000 --> 00:16:41,240 Speaker 3: Bite marks are totally different because you're interpreting an injury 259 00:16:41,280 --> 00:16:43,680 Speaker 3: on skin that has almost nothing to do with teeth 260 00:16:43,720 --> 00:16:46,800 Speaker 3: at all, And so all of the little individual, theoretically 261 00:16:46,880 --> 00:16:49,920 Speaker 3: unique differences in teeth that you're pointing out, the cracks, 262 00:16:50,040 --> 00:16:54,080 Speaker 3: the bevels, the crookedness or the straightness or the missing 263 00:16:54,120 --> 00:16:56,200 Speaker 3: tooth or this or that that you can think of, 264 00:16:56,280 --> 00:16:58,240 Speaker 3: that would be different from mouth to mouth or not 265 00:16:58,280 --> 00:17:01,680 Speaker 3: reflected in the skin whatsoever. But even if you can 266 00:17:01,840 --> 00:17:08,000 Speaker 3: say with some confidence that these two things can be associated, 267 00:17:08,040 --> 00:17:10,000 Speaker 3: then you have to answer the question is it one 268 00:17:10,040 --> 00:17:11,960 Speaker 3: in ten or is it one in ten million people 269 00:17:12,000 --> 00:17:15,760 Speaker 3: that might also match. So in DNA, we know you 270 00:17:15,800 --> 00:17:19,119 Speaker 3: know fairly well how many other people are likely to 271 00:17:19,119 --> 00:17:23,159 Speaker 3: share your DNA. We've done the statistical population frequencies to 272 00:17:23,280 --> 00:17:26,880 Speaker 3: know and to believe that the human DNA is unique. 273 00:17:27,160 --> 00:17:29,680 Speaker 4: We haven't done that with fingerprints or shoes. 274 00:17:29,440 --> 00:17:32,720 Speaker 3: Or tires or firearms, and we certainly have not done 275 00:17:32,720 --> 00:17:34,240 Speaker 3: those with teeth. 276 00:17:34,680 --> 00:17:37,720 Speaker 2: So you're saying that a bitemark and a suspect's tooth 277 00:17:37,840 --> 00:17:41,440 Speaker 2: might appear to match, but many other people's teeth might 278 00:17:41,480 --> 00:17:44,639 Speaker 2: match that same bite mark, so it's not a unique match. 279 00:17:45,080 --> 00:17:47,920 Speaker 3: Right, So you layer those problems on top of bite 280 00:17:47,920 --> 00:17:51,280 Speaker 3: marks where you're trying to interpret an injury in human skin, 281 00:17:51,720 --> 00:17:55,359 Speaker 3: where all skin is different, right, old people, young people, 282 00:17:55,480 --> 00:17:59,480 Speaker 3: thin people, heavy people. All these things make a difference 283 00:17:59,520 --> 00:18:03,080 Speaker 3: in individual skin characteristics. If you are flexing at the 284 00:18:03,080 --> 00:18:05,160 Speaker 3: time you were bitten, the bite mark's going to look 285 00:18:05,200 --> 00:18:08,200 Speaker 3: one way. If your arm was relaxed at the same time, 286 00:18:08,320 --> 00:18:10,520 Speaker 3: it would look a different way. Right, And if you 287 00:18:10,560 --> 00:18:13,040 Speaker 3: think about somebody who may be lost one hundred pounds 288 00:18:13,080 --> 00:18:15,800 Speaker 3: recently and has saggy skin as a result, right, the 289 00:18:15,840 --> 00:18:17,399 Speaker 3: way the bite mark is going to appear on that 290 00:18:17,440 --> 00:18:20,560 Speaker 3: person's going to be different than somebody who's you know, 291 00:18:21,480 --> 00:18:24,240 Speaker 3: puffy from drinking, right, and their skin's all taut and round, 292 00:18:24,359 --> 00:18:25,919 Speaker 3: you know, and you try and bite into that and 293 00:18:25,920 --> 00:18:28,040 Speaker 3: you're just going to engage a few teeth. So every 294 00:18:28,080 --> 00:18:31,400 Speaker 3: time that the same teeth make a bite mark, it's 295 00:18:31,440 --> 00:18:33,720 Speaker 3: going to look different every single time, depending on the 296 00:18:33,720 --> 00:18:35,639 Speaker 3: angle of the body, what type of struggle it was, 297 00:18:35,680 --> 00:18:38,320 Speaker 3: what type of person that you're dealing with. All of 298 00:18:38,320 --> 00:18:41,439 Speaker 3: these things are variables that change every single time. So 299 00:18:41,800 --> 00:18:45,800 Speaker 3: it's just fundamental speculation, you know, just guesswork that's proffered 300 00:18:45,840 --> 00:18:46,520 Speaker 3: as science. 301 00:18:46,680 --> 00:18:48,960 Speaker 4: Very very persuasive, but totally guesswork. 302 00:18:49,320 --> 00:18:52,679 Speaker 2: I read that someone can be missing their front teeth 303 00:18:53,640 --> 00:18:57,920 Speaker 2: bite down on human skin, and the bite mark can 304 00:18:58,040 --> 00:19:00,720 Speaker 2: make it appears if they actually have two front teeth, 305 00:19:01,520 --> 00:19:04,320 Speaker 2: and that someone would two front teeth that are fully 306 00:19:04,359 --> 00:19:08,000 Speaker 2: intact and bite down and the bitemark can look like 307 00:19:08,640 --> 00:19:10,399 Speaker 2: they are missing two front teeth. 308 00:19:10,600 --> 00:19:12,480 Speaker 3: Can really get the skin to say anything that you 309 00:19:12,560 --> 00:19:15,840 Speaker 3: needed to say, you can match a bitemark to almost 310 00:19:15,840 --> 00:19:16,600 Speaker 3: any suspect. 311 00:19:16,800 --> 00:19:20,080 Speaker 2: But if this evidence is so unreliable, then what exactly 312 00:19:20,160 --> 00:19:25,240 Speaker 2: makes these odentologists, these bitemark experts so convincing that they're 313 00:19:25,280 --> 00:19:29,000 Speaker 2: able to convince a judge or a jury of an 314 00:19:29,000 --> 00:19:30,440 Speaker 2: innocent person's guilt. 315 00:19:30,640 --> 00:19:33,440 Speaker 3: So you'll see these experts that are testifying and using 316 00:19:33,720 --> 00:19:38,120 Speaker 3: a lot of scientific terminology plus a lot of obscure 317 00:19:38,200 --> 00:19:42,119 Speaker 3: dental terminology, and the testimony just becomes opaque, and you 318 00:19:42,240 --> 00:19:44,679 Speaker 3: just kind of turn off your brain and your critical thinking. 319 00:19:44,760 --> 00:19:49,560 Speaker 3: And the experts sounds so persuasive because they have ten thousand. 320 00:19:49,240 --> 00:19:50,800 Speaker 4: Different ways to record a bite mark. 321 00:19:50,880 --> 00:19:53,119 Speaker 3: Some of them go so far as harvesting tissue they 322 00:19:53,160 --> 00:19:57,080 Speaker 3: call it from dead bodies and mounting them on silicone rings, 323 00:19:57,520 --> 00:20:00,879 Speaker 3: and they use ultra violet photography and digital photography and 324 00:20:00,920 --> 00:20:05,320 Speaker 3: black and white photography, and they use very very precise 325 00:20:05,440 --> 00:20:09,040 Speaker 3: dental molds, and they use dental materials that are highly 326 00:20:09,200 --> 00:20:12,240 Speaker 3: highly accurate. All that's very impressive, it's just totally meaningless. 327 00:20:12,440 --> 00:20:18,640 Speaker 3: There's massive distinction between collecting data and interpreting data and 328 00:20:19,000 --> 00:20:22,080 Speaker 3: what a lot of junk science relies on a very 329 00:20:22,200 --> 00:20:29,080 Speaker 3: very precise and impressive methods of collecting data and very 330 00:20:29,200 --> 00:20:31,399 Speaker 3: very light on interpreting the data. 331 00:20:31,720 --> 00:20:36,399 Speaker 2: And so the evidence of these so called expert odentologists 332 00:20:36,440 --> 00:20:40,600 Speaker 2: sound strong because of all the jargon and technology, and 333 00:20:40,600 --> 00:20:43,960 Speaker 2: in our society we're told to trust people in white 334 00:20:44,040 --> 00:20:47,919 Speaker 2: lab codes, and these guys, these odentologists, really do appear 335 00:20:47,960 --> 00:20:48,960 Speaker 2: to be experts. 336 00:20:49,160 --> 00:20:51,240 Speaker 3: When an expert witness gets on the stand, they don't 337 00:20:51,280 --> 00:20:54,120 Speaker 3: just start testifying, Right, what's the first thing that they do? 338 00:20:55,119 --> 00:20:55,320 Speaker 4: Right? 339 00:20:55,440 --> 00:20:58,359 Speaker 3: You go through their credentials cvs that are over twenty 340 00:20:58,480 --> 00:21:02,920 Speaker 3: pages long, apearances on sixty minutes presentations at the American 341 00:21:02,960 --> 00:21:07,280 Speaker 3: Academy of Forensic Sciences. This board membership, that board membership. 342 00:21:07,320 --> 00:21:08,880 Speaker 3: The credentials are off the. 343 00:21:08,920 --> 00:21:13,280 Speaker 2: Chain, right, So the jury hears all of these impressive credentials, 344 00:21:13,400 --> 00:21:17,480 Speaker 2: and why should they dispute it, And suddenly they start 345 00:21:17,520 --> 00:21:21,120 Speaker 2: believing that these so called experts must know what they're 346 00:21:21,119 --> 00:21:25,000 Speaker 2: talking about, that they're presenting solid scientific fact. 347 00:21:25,320 --> 00:21:29,600 Speaker 3: It takes a very very critical thinker and independent thinker 348 00:21:29,880 --> 00:21:34,800 Speaker 3: not to be lulled into a sense of, you know, 349 00:21:34,840 --> 00:21:39,359 Speaker 3: addicating your responsibility. And there's always two strikes against any 350 00:21:39,400 --> 00:21:42,840 Speaker 3: defendant that walks into criminal court and is on trial 351 00:21:42,960 --> 00:21:44,600 Speaker 3: you know, most of the people in the courtroom believe 352 00:21:44,640 --> 00:21:47,920 Speaker 3: that he or she is guilty already, the bias that 353 00:21:48,119 --> 00:21:52,120 Speaker 3: most Americans walk into court with with the idea that 354 00:21:52,600 --> 00:21:55,480 Speaker 3: the person that is on trial is guilty as charged. 355 00:21:55,600 --> 00:22:00,560 Speaker 2: Chris, I've heard of so many convictions where bitemark evidence 356 00:22:01,320 --> 00:22:06,320 Speaker 2: was used to gain the conviction and it was later 357 00:22:06,400 --> 00:22:09,880 Speaker 2: proven that the injuries weren't even human bites at all. 358 00:22:10,000 --> 00:22:13,919 Speaker 2: They were things like insect bites and animal bites or 359 00:22:14,520 --> 00:22:16,840 Speaker 2: you know, bruises, something else entirely. 360 00:22:17,359 --> 00:22:22,280 Speaker 3: One of the fundamental claims by bitemark experts, these forensic dentists, 361 00:22:23,200 --> 00:22:27,119 Speaker 3: is that they, through their training and experience, have the 362 00:22:27,200 --> 00:22:31,560 Speaker 3: ability to discern a human bitemark from other types of injuries. 363 00:22:32,440 --> 00:22:35,679 Speaker 3: What we can say in science is that if experts 364 00:22:35,920 --> 00:22:38,359 Speaker 3: look at the same evidence and largely come to similar 365 00:22:38,520 --> 00:22:42,919 Speaker 3: the same conclusions, there's some reliability in the technique. And 366 00:22:43,400 --> 00:22:47,160 Speaker 3: there was a study that was done about four years ago, 367 00:22:47,680 --> 00:22:50,920 Speaker 3: and what this was was a survey of the self 368 00:22:50,920 --> 00:22:53,760 Speaker 3: identified top forensic dentists in the country. It was about 369 00:22:53,840 --> 00:22:56,080 Speaker 3: forty of them, and they did a survey of one 370 00:22:56,119 --> 00:22:58,879 Speaker 3: hundred different injuries and they wanted to see if there 371 00:22:58,880 --> 00:23:00,760 Speaker 3: are inter raidar liability. 372 00:23:01,040 --> 00:23:03,359 Speaker 2: So when a bunch of vote intelligences looked at different 373 00:23:03,440 --> 00:23:06,639 Speaker 2: kinds of injuries, did they agree about whether or not 374 00:23:06,680 --> 00:23:09,000 Speaker 2: they were looking at photographs of human bite marks? 375 00:23:09,640 --> 00:23:13,280 Speaker 3: These top bite mark experts in the country, they were 376 00:23:13,280 --> 00:23:16,440 Speaker 3: all over the place. So even just as a threshold matter, 377 00:23:17,119 --> 00:23:19,520 Speaker 3: as we're talking about what's a bitemark and what isn't 378 00:23:19,520 --> 00:23:22,480 Speaker 3: a bite mark, it's junk science at that level too. 379 00:23:23,280 --> 00:23:25,360 Speaker 2: This study should have been the end of bite mark 380 00:23:25,440 --> 00:23:28,120 Speaker 2: evidence and courtrooms in this country, right, I mean, why 381 00:23:28,280 --> 00:23:29,000 Speaker 2: wasn't it? 382 00:23:29,000 --> 00:23:30,560 Speaker 3: It depends on really, you know, do you want the 383 00:23:30,560 --> 00:23:32,560 Speaker 3: cynical answer or do you want the long term answer. 384 00:23:32,600 --> 00:23:35,160 Speaker 3: The cynical answer is that courts don't care. Any tool 385 00:23:35,600 --> 00:23:41,720 Speaker 3: that is used successfully to prosecute indigent defendants in our 386 00:23:41,760 --> 00:23:46,400 Speaker 3: criminal justice system is almost always going to be available 387 00:23:46,440 --> 00:23:49,879 Speaker 3: to the prosecution and continue to be available to the 388 00:23:49,880 --> 00:23:52,919 Speaker 3: prosecution once it's become admissible in the first place, and 389 00:23:52,960 --> 00:23:56,160 Speaker 3: it's almost impossible to unwind it and to walk back 390 00:23:56,200 --> 00:23:58,639 Speaker 3: all that legal precedent. The prosecutors have a duty to 391 00:23:58,680 --> 00:24:00,800 Speaker 3: do justice, and that part of that to be never 392 00:24:00,920 --> 00:24:03,359 Speaker 3: using unreliable evidence in the case. 393 00:24:03,400 --> 00:24:05,560 Speaker 4: But that's not the way it's done. Once it's amissible. 394 00:24:05,600 --> 00:24:07,399 Speaker 3: The prosecutors are going to continue to fight for its 395 00:24:07,440 --> 00:24:10,000 Speaker 3: admissibility because it's useful to get convictions. 396 00:24:10,400 --> 00:24:14,480 Speaker 2: Right. The prosecutor who says, you know what, I feel 397 00:24:14,600 --> 00:24:18,280 Speaker 2: uncomfortable presenting a case that is built on junk science 398 00:24:19,040 --> 00:24:23,880 Speaker 2: is unfortunately the exception to the rule, and a very 399 00:24:24,000 --> 00:24:27,520 Speaker 2: rare exception at that. And I think what our listeners 400 00:24:27,600 --> 00:24:32,080 Speaker 2: need to understand is that prosecutors are often told go 401 00:24:32,160 --> 00:24:35,720 Speaker 2: get a conviction, and what matters to them is the win, 402 00:24:36,440 --> 00:24:41,280 Speaker 2: and the mentality is when it all costs, even if 403 00:24:41,320 --> 00:24:49,080 Speaker 2: it means presenting information that is known to be unscientific, unreliable, unsubstantiated, 404 00:24:49,480 --> 00:25:08,199 Speaker 2: including bitemark evidence. At the beginning of this episode, I 405 00:25:08,240 --> 00:25:12,240 Speaker 2: asked you to imagine yourself accused of a murder. The 406 00:25:12,320 --> 00:25:16,840 Speaker 2: victim had bitemarks all over their body. The prosecution brought 407 00:25:16,880 --> 00:25:20,480 Speaker 2: out a parade of experts. They presented what sounded like 408 00:25:20,720 --> 00:25:26,360 Speaker 2: unimpeachable scientific fact. You're sitting there knowing that you're innocent, 409 00:25:27,040 --> 00:25:30,359 Speaker 2: yet these so called facts about bitemarks are being used 410 00:25:30,359 --> 00:25:34,800 Speaker 2: to turn a jury against you. These supposed experts are 411 00:25:34,960 --> 00:25:40,200 Speaker 2: still being used to wrongly convict people all over the country. 412 00:25:40,760 --> 00:25:44,000 Speaker 2: There are people sitting on death row right now whose 413 00:25:44,119 --> 00:25:47,560 Speaker 2: cases are based on the junk signs of bitemark evidence. 414 00:25:48,480 --> 00:25:52,080 Speaker 2: The good news is that lawyers like Chris Fabricaon are 415 00:25:52,119 --> 00:25:55,399 Speaker 2: working with the Innocence Project to overturn cases that are 416 00:25:55,440 --> 00:25:56,880 Speaker 2: based on bitemark evidence. 417 00:25:57,320 --> 00:26:01,240 Speaker 3: Our objectives were was to eliminate the use of bite 418 00:26:01,240 --> 00:26:04,560 Speaker 3: mark evidence generally, which you know, sadly we still have 419 00:26:04,560 --> 00:26:07,880 Speaker 3: an accomplished that goal, but also defines the many, many 420 00:26:07,960 --> 00:26:11,280 Speaker 3: victims of this junk science and that are still incarcerated 421 00:26:11,320 --> 00:26:13,639 Speaker 3: around the country. You know, we still have five different 422 00:26:13,640 --> 00:26:15,919 Speaker 3: cases that we're working on right now with people that 423 00:26:16,200 --> 00:26:19,040 Speaker 3: are in prison and on death row. We have two 424 00:26:19,119 --> 00:26:22,119 Speaker 3: death row clients and one case that's about to go 425 00:26:22,119 --> 00:26:25,520 Speaker 3: to trial in another capital case in Pennsylvania that's also 426 00:26:25,840 --> 00:26:27,760 Speaker 3: you know, trying to use bite mark evidence. 427 00:26:28,320 --> 00:26:32,560 Speaker 2: The wheels of justice grind slowly, but there is hope 428 00:26:32,800 --> 00:26:37,320 Speaker 2: Chris's attempt to eliminate bitemark evidence from our criminal justice 429 00:26:37,359 --> 00:26:43,159 Speaker 2: system is indeed paying off. One of Chris's clients, Shila Denton, 430 00:26:43,640 --> 00:26:47,080 Speaker 2: who was wrongfully convicted based on bite mark evidence, was 431 00:26:47,160 --> 00:26:49,600 Speaker 2: released from prison this past April. 432 00:26:49,960 --> 00:26:55,080 Speaker 3: Sheila Denton was convicted fifteen years ago for the homicide 433 00:26:55,119 --> 00:26:59,879 Speaker 3: of a drug dealer in Georgia. The state's theory was 434 00:27:00,359 --> 00:27:03,520 Speaker 3: that Sheila Denton, who's you know, weighed in about one 435 00:27:03,600 --> 00:27:07,200 Speaker 3: hundred and ten hundred and fifteen pounds, had manually strangled 436 00:27:07,240 --> 00:27:10,160 Speaker 3: this crack dealer who's maybe about one hundred and eighty 437 00:27:10,160 --> 00:27:13,960 Speaker 3: pounds man, and there was an injury on her arm, 438 00:27:14,280 --> 00:27:17,719 Speaker 3: and there was an injury on the victim's arm. The 439 00:27:18,440 --> 00:27:20,840 Speaker 3: forensic dentist in the case, a guy named Tom David, 440 00:27:20,960 --> 00:27:24,479 Speaker 3: said it was probable that Sheila Denton had bitten the victim, 441 00:27:24,480 --> 00:27:27,280 Speaker 3: and it was also probable that the victim had bitten 442 00:27:27,320 --> 00:27:30,240 Speaker 3: Sheila Denton, and that was essentially the only evidence in 443 00:27:30,240 --> 00:27:33,240 Speaker 3: the case. So Sheila Denton was fairly quickly convicted. 444 00:27:33,640 --> 00:27:36,560 Speaker 2: But when the case was overturned, Chris was able to 445 00:27:36,560 --> 00:27:40,200 Speaker 2: convince not only the judge but also the odentologists who 446 00:27:40,240 --> 00:27:44,600 Speaker 2: testified for the prosecution that bitemark evidence is nothing but 447 00:27:44,720 --> 00:27:45,480 Speaker 2: junk science. 448 00:27:46,080 --> 00:27:48,800 Speaker 3: You know, for an expert who drank the kool aid 449 00:27:48,840 --> 00:27:51,520 Speaker 3: for many years and has been declared an expert witness 450 00:27:51,520 --> 00:27:53,200 Speaker 3: in courts around the country and takes a lot of 451 00:27:53,280 --> 00:27:58,240 Speaker 3: personal and professional pride in the forensic identology practice, you know, 452 00:27:58,320 --> 00:28:00,800 Speaker 3: I mean and busting bad guys asked apect of their 453 00:28:01,240 --> 00:28:06,200 Speaker 3: civic duties to come to the realization that they were wrong, 454 00:28:06,840 --> 00:28:09,520 Speaker 3: that everything that they had talked about and everything that 455 00:28:09,520 --> 00:28:12,399 Speaker 3: they believed in was bullshit. That's very, very powerful, and 456 00:28:12,440 --> 00:28:14,200 Speaker 3: you need more of that in forensics. 457 00:28:18,920 --> 00:28:22,320 Speaker 2: You might be wondering how you can help besides being 458 00:28:22,359 --> 00:28:26,760 Speaker 2: a more critical and informed jour The Innocence Projects Policy 459 00:28:26,840 --> 00:28:30,080 Speaker 2: Department works in all fifty states to pass laws that 460 00:28:30,160 --> 00:28:35,120 Speaker 2: facilitate releasing innocent people from prison and preventing wrongful convictions. 461 00:28:35,760 --> 00:28:38,239 Speaker 2: Sign up for their newsletter so you can see the 462 00:28:38,280 --> 00:28:42,240 Speaker 2: policies that are being proposed in your community. There's an 463 00:28:42,240 --> 00:28:45,760 Speaker 2: expression that I like to use in wrongful incarceration cases, 464 00:28:46,360 --> 00:28:51,680 Speaker 2: which is that pressure breaks pipes. These exonerations don't come easy. 465 00:28:52,320 --> 00:28:56,480 Speaker 2: They're usually the result of a grueling fight, and your 466 00:28:56,600 --> 00:29:01,280 Speaker 2: voice matters. What I mean by that is, make noise 467 00:29:01,320 --> 00:29:04,800 Speaker 2: about the junk science of bitemark evidence. Write a letter 468 00:29:04,840 --> 00:29:08,000 Speaker 2: to your local criminal court judges about how inaccurate it is. 469 00:29:08,760 --> 00:29:11,960 Speaker 2: Send them articles about its flaws. Write an op ed. 470 00:29:12,880 --> 00:29:16,479 Speaker 2: Judges are human, they can be persuaded, and you have 471 00:29:16,560 --> 00:29:19,880 Speaker 2: the power to help change their minds by speaking up. 472 00:29:20,840 --> 00:29:24,240 Speaker 2: You have learned from this episode, how dangerous one case, 473 00:29:24,920 --> 00:29:28,479 Speaker 2: one legal precedent can be in infecting our system of 474 00:29:28,640 --> 00:29:32,400 Speaker 2: justice with junk science. All it takes is one more 475 00:29:32,640 --> 00:29:35,520 Speaker 2: to write that wrong. And if you wind up as 476 00:29:35,560 --> 00:29:38,440 Speaker 2: a juror in a criminal case and you find yourself 477 00:29:38,480 --> 00:29:42,480 Speaker 2: presented with something that is touted as science, ask tough 478 00:29:42,560 --> 00:29:46,520 Speaker 2: questions of your fellow jurors when you're deliberating. Approach it 479 00:29:46,560 --> 00:29:50,640 Speaker 2: with a healthy degree of skepticism. Demand answers to tough 480 00:29:50,720 --> 00:29:55,120 Speaker 2: questions if something doesn't make sense, Give the defendant the 481 00:29:55,160 --> 00:29:58,800 Speaker 2: benefit of the doubt. After all, isn't that what the 482 00:29:58,840 --> 00:30:02,440 Speaker 2: presumption of innocence is all about. If you do that, 483 00:30:03,040 --> 00:30:07,360 Speaker 2: if you demand real proof beyond a reasonable doubt and 484 00:30:07,440 --> 00:30:11,560 Speaker 2: it doesn't meet that standard, you might just prevent the 485 00:30:11,600 --> 00:30:21,200 Speaker 2: next wrongful conviction. Next week, we'll explore the junk signs 486 00:30:21,240 --> 00:30:25,480 Speaker 2: of blood spatter analysis with award winning journalist Pamela Koloff 487 00:30:25,680 --> 00:30:28,760 Speaker 2: from Pro Publica and The New York Times. Pam has 488 00:30:28,800 --> 00:30:32,240 Speaker 2: written extensively about this kind of evidence. As part of 489 00:30:32,280 --> 00:30:36,200 Speaker 2: her research, she actually became a certified blood spatter analyst. 490 00:30:39,440 --> 00:30:42,400 Speaker 2: Wrongful Conviction Junk Science is a production of Lava for 491 00:30:42,480 --> 00:30:46,720 Speaker 2: Good Podcasts in association with Signal Company Number One. Thanks 492 00:30:46,720 --> 00:30:49,440 Speaker 2: to our executive producer Jason Flahm and the team at 493 00:30:49,520 --> 00:30:53,800 Speaker 2: Signal Company Number One executive producer Kevin Wardis and senior 494 00:30:53,840 --> 00:30:58,280 Speaker 2: producers Karen Kornhaber and Brit Spangler. Our music was composed 495 00:30:58,280 --> 00:31:01,480 Speaker 2: by Jay Ralph. You can follow me on Instagram at 496 00:31:01,560 --> 00:31:05,720 Speaker 2: dubin dot Josh. Follow the Wrongful Conviction podcast on Facebook 497 00:31:06,000 --> 00:31:09,520 Speaker 2: and on Instagram at Wrongful Conviction and on Twitter at 498 00:31:09,560 --> 00:31:10,360 Speaker 2: wrong Conviction