WEBVTT - #388 Wrongful Conviction: Junk Science - Bite Mark Evidence 0:00:01.800 --> 0:00:04.520 Hey, folks, Kate Judson here, I'm a lawyer and the 0:00:04.559 --> 0:00:08.119 executive director of the Center for Integrity and Forensic Sciences. 0:00:09.480 --> 0:00:12.399 We're back with an episode of Junk Science, a series 0:00:12.440 --> 0:00:16.400 we first released in twenty twenty. Each episode highlights ways 0:00:16.640 --> 0:00:21.119 that inaccurate or misinterpreted forensics can result in a wrongful conviction. 0:00:22.160 --> 0:00:26.079 This week's episode focuses on bitemark evidence, a forensic specialty 0:00:26.120 --> 0:00:29.000 that is thankfully falling out of favor as more and 0:00:29.080 --> 0:00:32.800 more courts realize its shortcomings. But that doesn't mean that 0:00:32.840 --> 0:00:36.000 it's totally gone or that the legal system doesn't still 0:00:36.040 --> 0:00:42.159 feel its influence. To me and others familiar with bitemark evidence, 0:00:42.240 --> 0:00:45.720 the name doctor Michael West will ring some bells. He's 0:00:45.760 --> 0:00:49.360 an infamous bitemark analyst whose questionable assertions in court have 0:00:49.479 --> 0:00:52.920 led to many wrongful convictions. He claimed that he could 0:00:52.960 --> 0:00:56.240 find bitemarks and other marks on skin that no one 0:00:56.240 --> 0:01:00.320 else could find using alternative light source photography, thing that 0:01:00.400 --> 0:01:05.160 is unsupported by scientific evidence. This concept is another dimension 0:01:05.319 --> 0:01:08.679 of what you'll hear discussed in this episode that increasingly 0:01:08.720 --> 0:01:13.560 sophisticated methods of evidence collection don't do a thing to 0:01:13.760 --> 0:01:20.840 ensure accurate interpretation. Only By revealing and changing the underlying 0:01:20.920 --> 0:01:31.080 systemic problems, can we ensure reliability. 0:01:31.880 --> 0:01:36.080 Imagine this. You're at your house. You're standing at the 0:01:36.120 --> 0:01:39.479 stove making dinner. You hear a knock at the door. 0:01:40.360 --> 0:01:44.640 It's the police. They ask you your name. They've been 0:01:44.680 --> 0:01:48.200 looking for you. The first thing you think is, oh, no, 0:01:48.840 --> 0:01:51.440 something must have happened to a friend or someone in 0:01:51.480 --> 0:01:55.840 my family. An officer looks you in the eye. They 0:01:55.880 --> 0:01:59.880 need to ask you some questions. What is it? What happened? 0:02:01.280 --> 0:02:03.680 They won't tell you. You'll need to go down to 0:02:03.760 --> 0:02:07.040 the police station. You agree to go with them, and 0:02:07.120 --> 0:02:12.400 you ask them over and over what's the problem. You're 0:02:12.440 --> 0:02:16.000 putting a small windowless room and you're very anxious, and 0:02:16.040 --> 0:02:21.000 you're told you wait here. Two plain closed detectives eventually 0:02:21.040 --> 0:02:24.120 come in. One sits across from you, or a rickety 0:02:24.160 --> 0:02:27.240 table separates you from him. The other comes to your 0:02:27.320 --> 0:02:29.960 side of the table and he sits so close to 0:02:30.000 --> 0:02:34.400 you that his knee is touching yours. He quickly begins 0:02:34.400 --> 0:02:39.000 accusing you of raping and murdering someone. He says a 0:02:39.080 --> 0:02:43.120 name that you recognize. It's your ex who you haven't 0:02:43.120 --> 0:02:47.680 been in contact with for years. The one sitting closest 0:02:47.680 --> 0:02:50.200 to you, tells you the murder happened last night and 0:02:50.240 --> 0:02:52.560 that the only way you can help yourself is to 0:02:52.720 --> 0:02:55.440 just admit what you did. He asked you where you 0:02:55.480 --> 0:02:58.760 were yesterday. At first, it's not easy to remember the 0:02:58.840 --> 0:03:02.480 mundane details of the past day. You were just told 0:03:02.520 --> 0:03:05.720 that your ex was murdered. But you take a deep 0:03:05.760 --> 0:03:09.320 breath and you try to focus. You were at work 0:03:09.360 --> 0:03:11.760 all day. On your way home, you went to the 0:03:11.800 --> 0:03:14.840 grocery store. Then you stopped and had a bureau with 0:03:14.919 --> 0:03:17.720 some friends at a local bar. Then you got gas 0:03:18.560 --> 0:03:21.280 at the gas station. You ran into one of your neighbors. 0:03:21.720 --> 0:03:25.600 You can remember sitting there across from those detectives at 0:03:25.720 --> 0:03:30.359 least nine alibi witnesses. You tell this to the detectives, 0:03:30.639 --> 0:03:33.680 and this gets them even more pissed. They say, look, 0:03:34.040 --> 0:03:37.120 we don't believe you. We know you killed this woman. 0:03:38.400 --> 0:03:40.800 They tell you that the victim has bite marks all 0:03:40.800 --> 0:03:44.280 over her neck, on her shoulder, her inner thigh, and 0:03:44.280 --> 0:03:47.320 her arm. They tell you that the killer left those 0:03:47.360 --> 0:03:51.040 bite marks that they can determine who committed this crime 0:03:51.320 --> 0:03:54.240 just by taking a dental impression of their teeth and 0:03:54.320 --> 0:03:57.640 matching it to the bite marks on the victim. And 0:03:57.720 --> 0:04:00.160 if you're so innocent, they say, if this is there's 0:04:00.200 --> 0:04:02.560 some big mix up and you didn't really do this, 0:04:03.080 --> 0:04:06.480 let us just take an impression of your teeth. Fine, 0:04:06.800 --> 0:04:11.520 let's do it. After more forceful accusations, they let you 0:04:11.600 --> 0:04:15.960 sit there, and sit there, and sit there. A few 0:04:16.000 --> 0:04:18.760 hours later, they send a man into the room wearing 0:04:18.800 --> 0:04:21.880 a white lab coat, and he certainly looks the part 0:04:21.880 --> 0:04:25.360 of a dentist. He takes out two metal bite plates 0:04:25.720 --> 0:04:29.600 and fills them with a silly putty like substance. He 0:04:29.640 --> 0:04:32.960 pushes these cold trays into your mouth and tells you 0:04:33.000 --> 0:04:37.120 to bite down. The putty tastes like plastic. It hugs 0:04:37.120 --> 0:04:41.080 your teeth, then quickly firms up and drives. Then it's 0:04:41.080 --> 0:04:43.680 pulled from your mouth and there is a perfect impression. 0:04:45.040 --> 0:04:47.560 The cops come back in and they tell you can 0:04:47.640 --> 0:04:51.120 leave the police station, but they also tell you you're not 0:04:51.160 --> 0:04:55.880 to leave town. Three sleepless nights later, you're at your house, 0:04:56.200 --> 0:04:59.440 laying awake in bed, and you're really overcome by anxiety. 0:05:00.240 --> 0:05:03.440 You're wondering, do I need an attorney or does that 0:05:03.480 --> 0:05:05.920 make it look like I may have actually done something wrong? 0:05:06.560 --> 0:05:08.600 How do I act what am I supposed to do? 0:05:09.760 --> 0:05:15.440 And then your dog starts barking. This time they don't knock. 0:05:16.960 --> 0:05:19.919 Your front door is blown off its hinges by a 0:05:19.960 --> 0:05:23.240 swat team, and before you know what's happening, you are 0:05:23.279 --> 0:05:26.320 on the ground. You can clearly hear one of these 0:05:26.360 --> 0:05:31.159 cops yell at you don't fucking move. Your face is 0:05:31.200 --> 0:05:35.480 being pushed into the carpet. You're being handcuffed. You're told 0:05:35.520 --> 0:05:37.880 you're being charged with the rape and murder of your 0:05:37.920 --> 0:05:42.040 ex who you haven't seen or spoken to in years. 0:05:45.760 --> 0:05:49.400 At your trial, the prosecution gets two experts in bite marks, 0:05:49.440 --> 0:05:53.600 called odentologists, an impressive sounding title for a forensic dentist, 0:05:54.240 --> 0:05:57.760 and they explain how the ridges, angles, peaks, and valleys 0:05:57.800 --> 0:06:02.000 of your teeth, these unique characteristics, perfectly matched with the 0:06:02.000 --> 0:06:05.479 bite marks on the victim. They say things to the 0:06:05.560 --> 0:06:09.240 jury that sound really impressive. There's a one in a 0:06:09.279 --> 0:06:11.960 million chances that these bite marks are anyone else's but 0:06:12.120 --> 0:06:15.159 the defendants, they say, and we know that to a 0:06:15.240 --> 0:06:22.720 degree of scientific certainty. The jury seems to be completely 0:06:22.960 --> 0:06:26.919 buying this, and why not? It all sounds so rational, 0:06:27.320 --> 0:06:34.400 so infallible. You're thinking, I'm really screwtier but you know 0:06:34.520 --> 0:06:41.480 you're innocent. Countless innocent men and women have lived this 0:06:41.560 --> 0:06:47.520 horrific nightmare. Their wrongful convictions are based on evidence presented 0:06:47.560 --> 0:06:53.240 by odentologists, the quote unquote scientific experts and bite mark evidence. 0:06:56.880 --> 0:07:00.600 I'm Josh Duben, civil rights and criminal defense attorney, an 0:07:00.600 --> 0:07:04.440 innocent ambassador to the Innocence Project in New York. Today 0:07:04.640 --> 0:07:08.800 on wrongful conviction junk science, We're going to explore bitemark evidence. 0:07:10.560 --> 0:07:13.240 Like other forms of junk science used in criminal trials, 0:07:13.880 --> 0:07:17.679 bitemark evidence does not benefit crime victims or their loved ones, 0:07:18.360 --> 0:07:21.840 So why is it treated like credible science. It turns 0:07:21.880 --> 0:07:25.920 out that the charade of bitemark evidence is actually older 0:07:25.960 --> 0:07:41.080 than the United States. On April thirtieth, sixteen ninety two, 0:07:41.400 --> 0:07:44.400 a reverend by the name of George Burrows was arrested 0:07:44.480 --> 0:07:48.160 and accused of torturing young women into witchcraft. It was 0:07:48.200 --> 0:07:51.200 alleged that it would inflict various forms of physical harm 0:07:51.200 --> 0:07:56.680 on them, pinching, strangling, and yes, biting them. The evidence 0:07:56.680 --> 0:08:01.200 against Burrows was really thin, but the only physical evidence 0:08:01.360 --> 0:08:04.680 where the alleged bitemarks that the prosecution claimed his teeth 0:08:05.040 --> 0:08:08.840 left on the flesh of his victims at his trial, 0:08:09.120 --> 0:08:11.840 Reverend Burroughs was pulled by the face around the courtroom 0:08:12.000 --> 0:08:15.960 and his mouth was pride open. A stick was used 0:08:15.960 --> 0:08:20.080 to point out the unique characteristics of Burrow's teeth, the peaks, 0:08:20.320 --> 0:08:23.720 the angles of his molars, and then they were compared 0:08:23.760 --> 0:08:25.840 to what the court was told were bite marks on 0:08:25.880 --> 0:08:31.240 the young girls. Burrows was convicted and publicly hanged. While 0:08:31.280 --> 0:08:33.320 he stood on a ladder awaiting the tightening of a 0:08:33.360 --> 0:08:37.760 noose around his neck, he prayed. He recited the Lord's Prayer, 0:08:37.920 --> 0:08:41.280 and a collective gasp, like a creeping wave, rolled through 0:08:41.320 --> 0:08:44.360 the crowd that had gathered to watch his hanging. Because 0:08:44.360 --> 0:08:49.920 the Lord's Prayer was considered impossible for a witch, and 0:08:50.000 --> 0:08:55.440 so bitemark evidence was born in the bloodthirsty hysteria of 0:08:55.520 --> 0:09:00.760 the Salem witch trials, Burrow's recitation of the Lord's Prayer 0:09:01.000 --> 0:09:03.679 should have been a sign that something was wrong with 0:09:03.720 --> 0:09:07.520 his conviction, that he wasn't a witch after all, Because 0:09:07.559 --> 0:09:11.160 it turns out the angry, frenzied mob that was so 0:09:11.280 --> 0:09:15.559 quick to accuse, convict, and hang George Burrows had in 0:09:15.559 --> 0:09:20.280 fact executed an innocent man. Twenty years after he was 0:09:20.320 --> 0:09:24.520 put to death, George Burrows was declared innocent. He was 0:09:24.559 --> 0:09:27.960 in another town altogether on the knights that the victims 0:09:27.960 --> 0:09:32.480 were allegedly tortured. George Burrows hadn't beten anyone at all. 0:09:33.280 --> 0:09:36.240 That entire show that was put on in that courtroom, 0:09:36.520 --> 0:09:39.560 the circus of forcing his mouth open was nothing more 0:09:39.800 --> 0:09:45.280 than performance masquerading as signs. And yet bite mark evidence 0:09:45.400 --> 0:09:49.000 is still being used in courtrooms across the country to 0:09:49.120 --> 0:09:52.520 convict innocent people of crimes they did not commit. 0:09:54.440 --> 0:09:58.280 Every single case that my department has gotten involved in 0:09:58.360 --> 0:10:00.920 has ended up in reversal of the conviction, or exclusion 0:10:00.960 --> 0:10:03.480 of the evidence, or withdrawal of the evidence because it's 0:10:03.480 --> 0:10:04.720 so grossly unreliable. 0:10:05.600 --> 0:10:08.160 To tell us more about bitemark evidence, we have Chris 0:10:08.200 --> 0:10:12.120 Fabricn from the Innocence Project here with us today. Throughout 0:10:12.120 --> 0:10:15.000 his twenty year legal career, Chris has worked on countless 0:10:15.040 --> 0:10:18.080 cases in which innocent men and women spent decades in 0:10:18.120 --> 0:10:20.360 prison because of bitemark evidence. 0:10:20.800 --> 0:10:25.040 We at the Innocence Project had an agenda about eliminating 0:10:25.080 --> 0:10:27.400 the use of bitemark evidence in criminal trials. 0:10:28.280 --> 0:10:32.240 Chris, there's a case from the nineteen seventies, the People 0:10:32.360 --> 0:10:35.560 versus Marx, which I believe is the first modern instance 0:10:35.600 --> 0:10:40.240 of a bitemark on human skin being presented as evidence. 0:10:40.880 --> 0:10:42.520 Can you tell us about this case? 0:10:42.960 --> 0:10:47.720 So, Walter Marx was a weekend tenant of a woman 0:10:47.840 --> 0:10:51.400 named Lovey Brazanski, and so the first time since he 0:10:51.440 --> 0:10:53.800 had had this lease, he did not spend the night 0:10:54.080 --> 0:10:58.080 on the weekend, and that same weekend the murder victim 0:10:58.200 --> 0:11:02.400 turned up dead. Police discouvers the body on Sunday afternoon, 0:11:02.440 --> 0:11:08.960 and they noticed that the victims nose had been indelicately 0:11:09.040 --> 0:11:14.280 put bitten off, and the cartilage of the nose on 0:11:14.360 --> 0:11:17.120 the victim's face had left the impression of what appeared 0:11:17.160 --> 0:11:20.040 to be tooth marks. Mister Marx looked good for it, 0:11:20.080 --> 0:11:22.400 but there wasn't really any evidence apart from the fact 0:11:22.440 --> 0:11:26.160 that he didn't show up for his usual weekend stay. 0:11:27.000 --> 0:11:30.960 So there was a group of dentists who had had 0:11:31.000 --> 0:11:34.560 some history with identifying human bodies through dental records, which 0:11:34.559 --> 0:11:38.480 is a totally different, unrelated subdiscipline of forensic dentistry. But 0:11:38.559 --> 0:11:42.959 they had had some interest in bitemark evidence and had 0:11:43.000 --> 0:11:46.199 been kind of looking for the right case to essentially 0:11:46.240 --> 0:11:50.280 try this out. And interestingly, mister Mark spent four months 0:11:50.320 --> 0:11:54.000 in jail on a contempt charge resisting the court order 0:11:54.160 --> 0:11:57.320 to have a mold taken of his teeth. Eventually he 0:11:57.360 --> 0:11:59.680 gave up and allowed the mold to be taken. 0:12:00.120 --> 0:12:03.560 Now, let me stop you. There didn't like six or 0:12:03.720 --> 0:12:06.760 eight weeks pass before they were able to compare the 0:12:06.800 --> 0:12:10.520 impression on Walter Mark's teeth to the victim. And hadn't 0:12:10.520 --> 0:12:13.240 she already been buried and they had to exhume her body? 0:12:14.160 --> 0:12:14.400 Yeah. 0:12:14.520 --> 0:12:17.880 You know what's interesting about that is that they still 0:12:17.920 --> 0:12:21.760 do exclamations and do that type of powdern matching today. 0:12:22.280 --> 0:12:25.480 Doesn't common sense just dictate that when you bury a 0:12:25.559 --> 0:12:30.679 human body, the skin changes, it starts to wear and decompose. 0:12:31.320 --> 0:12:35.080 It just seems like intuitive that if there was a 0:12:35.120 --> 0:12:38.360 bite mark and you actually could compare a teeth to it, 0:12:38.400 --> 0:12:41.280 that it wouldn't be, you know, worth anything to make 0:12:41.280 --> 0:12:44.440 that comparison after a body had been buried for that long. 0:12:45.320 --> 0:12:46.319 Yeah, precisely right. 0:12:46.400 --> 0:12:48.679 You're asking the critical questions that no court in the 0:12:48.720 --> 0:12:52.199 country asked for forty years, State after state after state 0:12:52.280 --> 0:12:55.920 after state cite it back to the Walter Marx decision 0:12:56.240 --> 0:12:59.440 as evidence of not just that it's amissibility, but if 0:12:59.440 --> 0:13:02.000 it's signed tipic reliability. 0:13:02.360 --> 0:13:05.920 This becomes the precedent. This becomes well, hey, bite mark 0:13:05.960 --> 0:13:09.079 evidence was accepted in the Marx case, you should accept 0:13:09.080 --> 0:13:11.040 it here, and all of a sudden, it just starts 0:13:11.080 --> 0:13:13.920 to get accepted. How is that even possible? 0:13:14.320 --> 0:13:15.160 Because it worked. 0:13:15.320 --> 0:13:18.400 You know, the criminal justice system is an efficient, eating 0:13:18.400 --> 0:13:22.040 and killing machine of largely poor people of color, and 0:13:22.120 --> 0:13:27.480 whatever facilitates that process, it's going to be used as 0:13:27.480 --> 0:13:30.880 long as courts admitted and bite mark evidence was introduced 0:13:30.880 --> 0:13:34.120 as evidence. The court admitted it, it got upheld on appeal, 0:13:34.200 --> 0:13:35.080 so it was good to go. 0:13:35.440 --> 0:13:38.760 So bite mark evidence was officially accepted in the Marx 0:13:38.840 --> 0:13:42.560 case and now it has been ingested, if you will, 0:13:43.000 --> 0:13:47.360 into the criminal justice system. But it became acceptable to 0:13:47.480 --> 0:13:50.760 the general public because of the Ted Bundy case. 0:13:50.559 --> 0:13:51.880 Right, yeah, you know. 0:13:51.920 --> 0:13:54.200 I mean I sometimes say that Ted Bundy ended up 0:13:54.240 --> 0:13:57.880 having many more posthumous victims than any other serial killer 0:13:58.120 --> 0:14:00.959 that we can be aware of, because that his trial 0:14:01.040 --> 0:14:03.160 led to the widespread use of bite mark evidence all 0:14:03.160 --> 0:14:03.960 over the country. 0:14:04.559 --> 0:14:06.880 So for those of our listeners who don't know, but 0:14:07.240 --> 0:14:09.240 I feel like it's safe to say, most dude, Ted 0:14:09.240 --> 0:14:13.160 Bundy was one of the most infamous serial killers in 0:14:13.320 --> 0:14:17.679 US history, and his murder trial was actually the first 0:14:17.679 --> 0:14:22.000 criminal trial to ever be televised in the United States. Now, 0:14:22.240 --> 0:14:28.160 there was overwhelming evidence that proved Bundy was guilty of killing, raping, 0:14:28.240 --> 0:14:33.080 and torturing these young women from Florida State University. And 0:14:33.160 --> 0:14:37.080 they had eyewitnessed testimony of him, you know, comings in 0:14:37.160 --> 0:14:41.320 the murder scene, leaving the murder scene. They had things 0:14:41.320 --> 0:14:43.640 that he had stolen from the homes of these women. 0:14:44.080 --> 0:14:46.760 And there was sort of like a beltz in suspenders 0:14:46.840 --> 0:14:50.000 moment where they wanted to make sure they did everything 0:14:50.080 --> 0:14:53.680 they could to prove his guilt. And they spent two 0:14:53.720 --> 0:14:59.280 full days presenting this bitemark testimony in the case. Why 0:14:59.320 --> 0:15:01.120 do you think that it is, Chris. 0:15:00.920 --> 0:15:04.880 People are hungry for every piece of news they could 0:15:04.920 --> 0:15:06.200 possibly get about Ted Bundy. 0:15:06.200 --> 0:15:07.760 Everybody believed he's guilty. 0:15:08.080 --> 0:15:10.440 The only physical evidence in that case was the bitemark, 0:15:11.120 --> 0:15:13.320 so it was touted as you know, bite marks are 0:15:13.320 --> 0:15:15.680 the thing that finally brought Bundy down. And after Ted 0:15:15.720 --> 0:15:19.080 Bundy was convicted and using bitemark evidence that really just 0:15:19.160 --> 0:15:39.000 exploded all over the country. 0:15:39.160 --> 0:15:44.040 There's something about teeth and dentists that gets associated with reliability, right, 0:15:44.080 --> 0:15:48.000 I mean, we've all heard about dental records being used 0:15:48.000 --> 0:15:54.240 to identify crime victims accident victims, and that sign seems 0:15:54.240 --> 0:15:57.120 to be real, But that's very different from saying that 0:15:57.320 --> 0:16:01.200 a bitemark can be used to identified the person that 0:16:01.560 --> 0:16:02.280 did the biting. 0:16:02.440 --> 0:16:06.320 Right, The identification of human remains through dental records is 0:16:06.360 --> 0:16:09.880 kind of a trojan horse for the forensic dentistry crowd 0:16:09.920 --> 0:16:14.240 to get into court on bitemark evidence, and I've seen 0:16:14.280 --> 0:16:19.400 it firsthand in lots of dentists. Conflating these two subdisciplines 0:16:19.520 --> 0:16:22.480 is the same thing. You identify people by their teeth, 0:16:22.840 --> 0:16:26.200 and you identify people by the bite marks those teeth make, 0:16:26.880 --> 0:16:29.360 and that kind of makes sense until you actually think 0:16:29.400 --> 0:16:32.240 about it. The two techniques have nothing whatsoever to do 0:16:32.360 --> 0:16:32.960 with each other. 0:16:33.400 --> 0:16:37.560 So why doesn't bitemark evidence work? Why isn't it reliable? 0:16:38.000 --> 0:16:41.240 Bite marks are totally different because you're interpreting an injury 0:16:41.280 --> 0:16:43.680 on skin that has almost nothing to do with teeth 0:16:43.720 --> 0:16:46.800 at all, And so all of the little individual, theoretically 0:16:46.880 --> 0:16:49.920 unique differences in teeth that you're pointing out, the cracks, 0:16:50.040 --> 0:16:54.080 the bevels, the crookedness or the straightness or the missing 0:16:54.120 --> 0:16:56.200 tooth or this or that that you can think of, 0:16:56.280 --> 0:16:58.240 that would be different from mouth to mouth or not 0:16:58.280 --> 0:17:01.680 reflected in the skin whatsoever. But even if you can 0:17:01.840 --> 0:17:08.000 say with some confidence that these two things can be associated, 0:17:08.040 --> 0:17:10.000 then you have to answer the question is it one 0:17:10.040 --> 0:17:11.960 in ten or is it one in ten million people 0:17:12.000 --> 0:17:15.760 that might also match. So in DNA, we know you 0:17:15.800 --> 0:17:19.119 know fairly well how many other people are likely to 0:17:19.119 --> 0:17:23.159 share your DNA. We've done the statistical population frequencies to 0:17:23.280 --> 0:17:26.880 know and to believe that the human DNA is unique. 0:17:27.160 --> 0:17:29.680 We haven't done that with fingerprints or shoes. 0:17:29.440 --> 0:17:32.720 Or tires or firearms, and we certainly have not done 0:17:32.720 --> 0:17:34.240 those with teeth. 0:17:34.680 --> 0:17:37.720 So you're saying that a bitemark and a suspect's tooth 0:17:37.840 --> 0:17:41.440 might appear to match, but many other people's teeth might 0:17:41.480 --> 0:17:44.639 match that same bite mark, so it's not a unique match. 0:17:45.080 --> 0:17:47.920 Right, So you layer those problems on top of bite 0:17:47.920 --> 0:17:51.280 marks where you're trying to interpret an injury in human skin, 0:17:51.720 --> 0:17:55.359 where all skin is different, right, old people, young people, 0:17:55.480 --> 0:17:59.480 thin people, heavy people. All these things make a difference 0:17:59.520 --> 0:18:03.080 in individual skin characteristics. If you are flexing at the 0:18:03.080 --> 0:18:05.160 time you were bitten, the bite mark's going to look 0:18:05.200 --> 0:18:08.200 one way. If your arm was relaxed at the same time, 0:18:08.320 --> 0:18:10.520 it would look a different way. Right, And if you 0:18:10.560 --> 0:18:13.040 think about somebody who may be lost one hundred pounds 0:18:13.080 --> 0:18:15.800 recently and has saggy skin as a result, right, the 0:18:15.840 --> 0:18:17.399 way the bite mark is going to appear on that 0:18:17.440 --> 0:18:20.560 person's going to be different than somebody who's you know, 0:18:21.480 --> 0:18:24.240 puffy from drinking, right, and their skin's all taut and round, 0:18:24.359 --> 0:18:25.919 you know, and you try and bite into that and 0:18:25.920 --> 0:18:28.040 you're just going to engage a few teeth. So every 0:18:28.080 --> 0:18:31.400 time that the same teeth make a bite mark, it's 0:18:31.440 --> 0:18:33.720 going to look different every single time, depending on the 0:18:33.720 --> 0:18:35.639 angle of the body, what type of struggle it was, 0:18:35.680 --> 0:18:38.320 what type of person that you're dealing with. All of 0:18:38.320 --> 0:18:41.439 these things are variables that change every single time. So 0:18:41.800 --> 0:18:45.800 it's just fundamental speculation, you know, just guesswork that's proffered 0:18:45.840 --> 0:18:46.520 as science. 0:18:46.680 --> 0:18:48.960 Very very persuasive, but totally guesswork. 0:18:49.320 --> 0:18:52.679 I read that someone can be missing their front teeth 0:18:53.640 --> 0:18:57.920 bite down on human skin, and the bite mark can 0:18:58.040 --> 0:19:00.720 make it appears if they actually have two front teeth, 0:19:01.520 --> 0:19:04.320 and that someone would two front teeth that are fully 0:19:04.359 --> 0:19:08.000 intact and bite down and the bitemark can look like 0:19:08.640 --> 0:19:10.399 they are missing two front teeth. 0:19:10.600 --> 0:19:12.480 Can really get the skin to say anything that you 0:19:12.560 --> 0:19:15.840 needed to say, you can match a bitemark to almost 0:19:15.840 --> 0:19:16.600 any suspect. 0:19:16.800 --> 0:19:20.080 But if this evidence is so unreliable, then what exactly 0:19:20.160 --> 0:19:25.240 makes these odentologists, these bitemark experts so convincing that they're 0:19:25.280 --> 0:19:29.000 able to convince a judge or a jury of an 0:19:29.000 --> 0:19:30.440 innocent person's guilt. 0:19:30.640 --> 0:19:33.440 So you'll see these experts that are testifying and using 0:19:33.720 --> 0:19:38.120 a lot of scientific terminology plus a lot of obscure 0:19:38.200 --> 0:19:42.119 dental terminology, and the testimony just becomes opaque, and you 0:19:42.240 --> 0:19:44.679 just kind of turn off your brain and your critical thinking. 0:19:44.760 --> 0:19:49.560 And the experts sounds so persuasive because they have ten thousand. 0:19:49.240 --> 0:19:50.800 Different ways to record a bite mark. 0:19:50.880 --> 0:19:53.119 Some of them go so far as harvesting tissue they 0:19:53.160 --> 0:19:57.080 call it from dead bodies and mounting them on silicone rings, 0:19:57.520 --> 0:20:00.879 and they use ultra violet photography and digital photography and 0:20:00.920 --> 0:20:05.320 black and white photography, and they use very very precise 0:20:05.440 --> 0:20:09.040 dental molds, and they use dental materials that are highly 0:20:09.200 --> 0:20:12.240 highly accurate. All that's very impressive, it's just totally meaningless. 0:20:12.440 --> 0:20:18.640 There's massive distinction between collecting data and interpreting data and 0:20:19.000 --> 0:20:22.080 what a lot of junk science relies on a very 0:20:22.200 --> 0:20:29.080 very precise and impressive methods of collecting data and very 0:20:29.200 --> 0:20:31.399 very light on interpreting the data. 0:20:31.720 --> 0:20:36.399 And so the evidence of these so called expert odentologists 0:20:36.440 --> 0:20:40.600 sound strong because of all the jargon and technology, and 0:20:40.600 --> 0:20:43.960 in our society we're told to trust people in white 0:20:44.040 --> 0:20:47.919 lab codes, and these guys, these odentologists, really do appear 0:20:47.960 --> 0:20:48.960 to be experts. 0:20:49.160 --> 0:20:51.240 When an expert witness gets on the stand, they don't 0:20:51.280 --> 0:20:54.120 just start testifying, Right, what's the first thing that they do? 0:20:55.119 --> 0:20:55.320 Right? 0:20:55.440 --> 0:20:58.359 You go through their credentials cvs that are over twenty 0:20:58.480 --> 0:21:02.920 pages long, apearances on sixty minutes presentations at the American 0:21:02.960 --> 0:21:07.280 Academy of Forensic Sciences. This board membership, that board membership. 0:21:07.320 --> 0:21:08.880 The credentials are off the. 0:21:08.920 --> 0:21:13.280 Chain, right, So the jury hears all of these impressive credentials, 0:21:13.400 --> 0:21:17.480 and why should they dispute it, And suddenly they start 0:21:17.520 --> 0:21:21.120 believing that these so called experts must know what they're 0:21:21.119 --> 0:21:25.000 talking about, that they're presenting solid scientific fact. 0:21:25.320 --> 0:21:29.600 It takes a very very critical thinker and independent thinker 0:21:29.880 --> 0:21:34.800 not to be lulled into a sense of, you know, 0:21:34.840 --> 0:21:39.359 addicating your responsibility. And there's always two strikes against any 0:21:39.400 --> 0:21:42.840 defendant that walks into criminal court and is on trial 0:21:42.960 --> 0:21:44.600 you know, most of the people in the courtroom believe 0:21:44.640 --> 0:21:47.920 that he or she is guilty already, the bias that 0:21:48.119 --> 0:21:52.120 most Americans walk into court with with the idea that 0:21:52.600 --> 0:21:55.480 the person that is on trial is guilty as charged. 0:21:55.600 --> 0:22:00.560 Chris, I've heard of so many convictions where bitemark evidence 0:22:01.320 --> 0:22:06.320 was used to gain the conviction and it was later 0:22:06.400 --> 0:22:09.880 proven that the injuries weren't even human bites at all. 0:22:10.000 --> 0:22:13.919 They were things like insect bites and animal bites or 0:22:14.520 --> 0:22:16.840 you know, bruises, something else entirely. 0:22:17.359 --> 0:22:22.280 One of the fundamental claims by bitemark experts, these forensic dentists, 0:22:23.200 --> 0:22:27.119 is that they, through their training and experience, have the 0:22:27.200 --> 0:22:31.560 ability to discern a human bitemark from other types of injuries. 0:22:32.440 --> 0:22:35.679 What we can say in science is that if experts 0:22:35.920 --> 0:22:38.359 look at the same evidence and largely come to similar 0:22:38.520 --> 0:22:42.919 the same conclusions, there's some reliability in the technique. And 0:22:43.400 --> 0:22:47.160 there was a study that was done about four years ago, 0:22:47.680 --> 0:22:50.920 and what this was was a survey of the self 0:22:50.920 --> 0:22:53.760 identified top forensic dentists in the country. It was about 0:22:53.840 --> 0:22:56.080 forty of them, and they did a survey of one 0:22:56.119 --> 0:22:58.879 hundred different injuries and they wanted to see if there 0:22:58.880 --> 0:23:00.760 are inter raidar liability. 0:23:01.040 --> 0:23:03.359 So when a bunch of vote intelligences looked at different 0:23:03.440 --> 0:23:06.639 kinds of injuries, did they agree about whether or not 0:23:06.680 --> 0:23:09.000 they were looking at photographs of human bite marks? 0:23:09.640 --> 0:23:13.280 These top bite mark experts in the country, they were 0:23:13.280 --> 0:23:16.440 all over the place. So even just as a threshold matter, 0:23:17.119 --> 0:23:19.520 as we're talking about what's a bitemark and what isn't 0:23:19.520 --> 0:23:22.480 a bite mark, it's junk science at that level too. 0:23:23.280 --> 0:23:25.360 This study should have been the end of bite mark 0:23:25.440 --> 0:23:28.120 evidence and courtrooms in this country, right, I mean, why 0:23:28.280 --> 0:23:29.000 wasn't it? 0:23:29.000 --> 0:23:30.560 It depends on really, you know, do you want the 0:23:30.560 --> 0:23:32.560 cynical answer or do you want the long term answer. 0:23:32.600 --> 0:23:35.160 The cynical answer is that courts don't care. Any tool 0:23:35.600 --> 0:23:41.720 that is used successfully to prosecute indigent defendants in our 0:23:41.760 --> 0:23:46.400 criminal justice system is almost always going to be available 0:23:46.440 --> 0:23:49.879 to the prosecution and continue to be available to the 0:23:49.880 --> 0:23:52.919 prosecution once it's become admissible in the first place, and 0:23:52.960 --> 0:23:56.160 it's almost impossible to unwind it and to walk back 0:23:56.200 --> 0:23:58.639 all that legal precedent. The prosecutors have a duty to 0:23:58.680 --> 0:24:00.800 do justice, and that part of that to be never 0:24:00.920 --> 0:24:03.359 using unreliable evidence in the case. 0:24:03.400 --> 0:24:05.560 But that's not the way it's done. Once it's amissible. 0:24:05.600 --> 0:24:07.399 The prosecutors are going to continue to fight for its 0:24:07.440 --> 0:24:10.000 admissibility because it's useful to get convictions. 0:24:10.400 --> 0:24:14.480 Right. The prosecutor who says, you know what, I feel 0:24:14.600 --> 0:24:18.280 uncomfortable presenting a case that is built on junk science 0:24:19.040 --> 0:24:23.880 is unfortunately the exception to the rule, and a very 0:24:24.000 --> 0:24:27.520 rare exception at that. And I think what our listeners 0:24:27.600 --> 0:24:32.080 need to understand is that prosecutors are often told go 0:24:32.160 --> 0:24:35.720