Bite-mark evidence: Challenges to its reliability in the news

Backwoods · Jun 17, 2013

Couple of interesting articles about the problems with the analysis of bite marks as evidence and about convictions based largely on bite-mark evidence that have been overturned:

AP IMPACT: Bites derided as unreliable in court

By AMANDA LEE MYERS Associated Press
At least 24 men convicted or charged with murder or rape based on bite marks on the flesh of victims have been exonerated since 2000, many after spending more than a decade in prison. Now a judge's ruling later this month in New York could help end the practice for good. ...

Read much more at: http://www.macon.com/2013/06/16/2520211/ap-impact-bites-derided-as-unreliable.html#storylink=topnext

Men wrongly convicted or arrested on bite evidence

By AMANDA LEE MYERS Associated Press
At least 24 men convicted or arrested based largely on murky bite-mark evidence have been exonerated by DNA testing, had charges dropped or otherwise been proved not guilty. Many spent more than a decade in prison, and one man was behind bars for more than 23 years before he was exonerated. One man is still in prison as an appeal works through the courts. The Associated Press compiled this list of some of the more notable cases using court records, news reports and information from the Innocence Project. ...

Summaries of some of the cases follow at: http://www.macon.com/2013/06/16/2520226/men-wrongly-convicted-or-arrested.html#wgt=rcntnews

ohiogirl · Jun 17, 2013

Although Brewer's conviction was vacated while he awaited execution in 2001, he was held in prison until 2008 because the prosecutor said he was going to retry him. Brooks also wasn't released until 2008.

West, of Hattiesburg, defended his testimony by saying that he never told jurors that Brooks and Brewer were the killers, only that they bit the children, and that he's not responsible for juries who found them guilty. He told the AP that DNA has made bite-mark analysis almost obsolete and that he no longer practices it.

---

Read more here: http://www.macon.com/2013/06/16/2520226/men-wrongly-convicted-or-arrested.html#storylink=cpy

Don't you just love it when they can't admit they were wrong.

mysteriew · Jun 17, 2013

I've always been a little leery about bite mark evidence. There would be a lot of variables on the angle when the bite was being administered, the elasticity of the skin, the skill of the person doing the analysis.

I would think that it might point toward a particular person, but not definitively identify them like DNA or fingerprints.

Dental identification wouldn't be affected in identifying remains would it?

Nova · Jun 17, 2013

mysteriew said:
I've always been a little leery about bite mark evidence. There would be a lot of variables on the angle when the bite was being administered, the elasticity of the skin, the skill of the person doing the analysis.

I would think that it might point toward a particular person, but not definitively identify them like DNA or fingerprints.

Dental identification wouldn't be affected in identifying remains would it?

I wouldn't think so. Identifying teeth is one thing (since teeth are more or less stationary until they are removed); identifying a bite on malleable skin is quite another.

Bite-mark evidence: Challenges to its reliability in the news

New Posts

Backwoods

New Member

ohiogirl

Active Member

mysteriew

A diamond in process

Nova

Well-Known Member

DNASolves

Members online

Online statistics

Forum statistics