bitemark analysis

CSI from the old days is not working out
In Wisconsin, Robert Stinson, 44, was released Friday after serving 23 yrs for a 1984 murder conviction. The reason was, of course, DNA, but at the trial, the clincher was two "forensic odontologists" who had testified, slam-dunk, that bite marks on the victim came from Stinson's teeth. One problem with that was that Stinson had long been (glaringly) missing one tooth from the bite-mark area, but the expert witnesses were "certified" so the jury sucked it up. In the ensuing 23 yrs, most "forensic odontologists" that you'd respect are much more sophisticated in their analysis, but there is still a courtroom market among prosecutors desperate for convictions, thus assuring survival of some old-schoolers. Associated Press via MSNBC
     Posted By: Chuck - Mon Feb 02, 2009
     Category:





Comments
You know, if these "experts" didn't get paid so much they might be a bit more credible. How about a system where the court assigns experts and the cost is split between the two sides?
Posted by Expat47 in Athens, Greece on 02/02/09 at 10:39 AM
the defense was lacking if the bite marks were that far off and it got by. a missing tooth should be pretty obvious in a bite impression. at what point does an obviously incorrect 'expert opinion' become outright purgery for hire. the prosecutor is an officer of the court and legally responsible if he submits evidence that he knows is untrue. perhaps these rules of law should get more than a wink and a nod.
Posted by Patty in Ohio, USA on 02/02/09 at 09:05 PM
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.