If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(10 News)   Bite marks may no longer be allowed as evidence. Om nom nom   (10news.com) divider line 53
    More: Interesting, om nom, bite marks, hung jury, wrongful convictions, California Supreme Court, scrutiny  
•       •       •

6204 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 Jun 2013 at 7:33 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



53 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-16 07:37:55 PM  
Whyever Not???  didna read article ...
 
2013-06-16 07:39:50 PM  
Seances and recovered memories are apparently still okay.
 
2013-06-16 07:41:31 PM  
This only makes us more vulnerable to vampire attacks.
 
2013-06-16 07:41:49 PM  
Good. Bite marks have the least 'science' of any of the CSI methods everyone feels are awesome. Hair analysis is next on the list.
 
2013-06-16 07:42:16 PM  
William Richards San Bernardino was convicted

Yeah, that's not the guy's name.
 
2013-06-16 07:46:41 PM  
This is good news . . . for Ted Bundy.
 
2013-06-16 07:47:38 PM  
It's funny how many times guys with no prior record end up punching their significant others only in the areas where their own fists could reach and have enough force to bruise, and only bite their significant others in places where they could reach with their own mouth...and from such an angle to make it appear that the victim bit themselves!  How quaint!

All joking aside, biting and hitting yourself then telling the police that your significant other did it is a common practice.  And they know what's up when they see all those bite marks on your forearms/shoulders/lower legs.
 
2013-06-16 07:48:11 PM  

BafflerMeal: Good. Bite marks have the least 'science' of any of the CSI methods everyone feels are awesome. Hair analysis is next on the list.


Next you're going to tell me they can't really enhance pictures like they do on CSI.
 
2013-06-16 07:50:35 PM  
 
TWX
2013-06-16 07:50:45 PM  
'bout damn time. One shady 'expert' killed men with his testimony, and several of those convicted and incarcerated including some on death row were exonerated when later DNA testing demonstrated that someone else was involved.

Forensic Science should be based in actual science. That which requires interpretation should have to stand up to a hell of a lot of scrutiny before being admissable.

I wouldn't be surprised if that 'expert' faces multimillion dollar wrongful-death suits against his malpractice down the road.
 
2013-06-16 07:51:43 PM  

maxx2112: This is good news . . . for Ted Bundy.


Yeah this totally means he was innocent!
 
2013-06-16 07:52:47 PM  
YES!
24.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-06-16 07:56:46 PM  
www.channel4.com

APPROVES


/But srsly, no spoilers pls. I know France has done it already, but I've just seen le deuxième épisode.
 
2013-06-16 07:56:50 PM  

A Terrible Human: maxx2112: This is good news . . . for Ted Bundy.

Yeah this totally means he was innocent!


Florida will give him a do-over on the electric chair.
 
2013-06-16 08:05:58 PM  
This is good news for Jon Voight. Also John Voight.
 
2013-06-16 08:09:28 PM  

BafflerMeal: Good. Bite marks have the least 'science' of any of the CSI methods everyone feels are awesome. Hair analysis is next on the list.


this
 
2013-06-16 08:37:16 PM  
www.blogsmithmedia.com
Does not approve.
 
2013-06-16 08:37:46 PM  

BafflerMeal: Good. Bite marks have the least 'science' of any of the CSI methods everyone feels are awesome. Hair analysis is next on the list.


Blood spatter pattern analysis and arson analysis have probably got it beat. Ooh, and polygraphs, though they're thankfully on their way out.

Honestly, it's pretty terrifying how many BS ways there are for innocent people to be found guilty.
 
2013-06-16 08:41:35 PM  
Disagrees:
www.saidaonline.com

YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!!!
instantyeah.org
 
2013-06-16 08:41:35 PM  
And really, there's no way to prove that no two fingerprints are alike. In all likelihood, there are some out there that are identical to all available means of testing.
 
2013-06-16 09:02:15 PM  

Glitchwerks: BafflerMeal: Good. Bite marks have the least 'science' of any of the CSI methods everyone feels are awesome. Hair analysis is next on the list.

Next you're going to tell me they can't really enhance pictures like they do on CSI.


Let's enhance.
 
2013-06-16 09:14:31 PM  
But are bite marks useless as evidence, or is the a case of a forensics expert simply being an idiot?
 
2013-06-16 09:16:06 PM  

CygnusDarius: This only makes us more vulnerable to vampire attacks.


People are weird.

static.artfire.com
 
2013-06-16 09:19:19 PM  
No Seinfeld reference? Shame in you all. /Not John Voight
 
2013-06-16 09:41:48 PM  

Yes please: And really, there's no way to prove that no two fingerprints are alike. In all likelihood, there are some out there that are identical to all available means of testing.


that's because the full pattern isn't compared. points are compared. and there is a lot of debate over how many matching points there should be to consider it a definitive "match." Hell, by the sheer numbers of it, someone else on the planet may share your DNA profile.
 
2013-06-16 09:53:59 PM  
...prove his innocence.

Uh, doesn't the burden of proof say that he should never have to do this?
 
2013-06-16 10:04:31 PM  

NeuroticRocker: No Seinfeld reference? Shame in you all. /Not John Voight


Other than mine?
 
2013-06-16 10:04:33 PM  

NIXON YOU DOLT!!!!!: Yes please: And really, there's no way to prove that no two fingerprints are alike. In all likelihood, there are some out there that are identical to all available means of testing.

that's because the full pattern isn't compared. points are compared. and there is a lot of debate over how many matching points there should be to consider it a definitive "match." Hell, by the sheer numbers of it, someone else on the planet may share your DNA profile.


Brandon Mayfield knows this all too well.
 
2013-06-16 10:04:45 PM  

NIXON YOU DOLT!!!!!: Yes please: And really, there's no way to prove that no two fingerprints are alike. In all likelihood, there are some out there that are identical to all available means of testing.

that's because the full pattern isn't compared. points are compared. and there is a lot of debate over how many matching points there should be to consider it a definitive "match." Hell, by the sheer numbers of it, someone else on the planet may share your DNA profile.


"a systematic search of the 65,000 felons in the Arizona database revealed that there were 122 pairs that matched at 9 of 13 loci. Twenty pairs matched at 10 loci."
 
2013-06-16 10:04:59 PM  
That is crap. I'm sure it is hard to tell average bites apart but I can see it as a way to exclude. Bite abnormalities should be used, crap like doubled teeth, extreme gaps, missing teeth can easily include and exclude people from the potential list. You shouldn't be able to prosecute with it but it should be a useful tool.
 
2013-06-16 10:08:02 PM  

famousp: ...prove his innocence.

Uh, doesn't the burden of proof say that he should never have to do this?


Did you say that with a straight face or were you being sarcastic?

Had a buddy that was arrested and then quesitoned once by the cops about a burglery (he more than likely did it) and he told the cops he wanted a lawyer.  They told him, "You ask for a lawyer it makes you look guilty."  He told them, "If you didn't think I was guilty you wouldn't be questioning me anyway so get me a lawyer."

The charges got dropped.
 
2013-06-16 10:15:00 PM  
They should go with phrenology

Its the only way to know for sure
 
2013-06-16 10:22:09 PM  
Happy with the ruling:

images.fineartamerica.com

/yeah, that's right, I'm kickin' it old school
 
2013-06-16 10:24:26 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: NIXON YOU DOLT!!!!!: Yes please: And really, there's no way to prove that no two fingerprints are alike. In all likelihood, there are some out there that are identical to all available means of testing.

that's because the full pattern isn't compared. points are compared. and there is a lot of debate over how many matching points there should be to consider it a definitive "match." Hell, by the sheer numbers of it, someone else on the planet may share your DNA profile.

"a systematic search of the 65,000 felons in the Arizona database revealed that there were 122 pairs that matched at 9 of 13 loci. Twenty pairs matched at 10 loci."


Then there are the Chimera.
 
2013-06-16 10:26:45 PM  
Nice....

I mean...um...

Yeah. Nice.

/not a bite
//a love-nibble
 
2013-06-16 10:34:47 PM  

Thats an 827: BarkingUnicorn: NIXON YOU DOLT!!!!!: Yes please: And really, there's no way to prove that no two fingerprints are alike. In all likelihood, there are some out there that are identical to all available means of testing.

that's because the full pattern isn't compared. points are compared. and there is a lot of debate over how many matching points there should be to consider it a definitive "match." Hell, by the sheer numbers of it, someone else on the planet may share your DNA profile.

"a systematic search of the 65,000 felons in the Arizona database revealed that there were 122 pairs that matched at 9 of 13 loci. Twenty pairs matched at 10 loci."

Then there are the Chimera.


Yeah.  I read about a case, a woman had a baby on welfare.  They did a DNA to try to identify the father--and it came back saying she wasn't the mother.  They were trying to accuse her of fraud, never mind that it was done right there in the hospital where she had the baby.  Turns out she was a chimera.
 
2013-06-17 12:11:43 AM  
"failed to prove his innocence." ... *facepalm*

That should never be said, ever.

I could get behind "failed to disprove his guilt."  perhaps, but that's still a kick in the nuts to "Innocent until proven guilty."

/General concept
//details iffy
///why, yes, I'm drunk.
 
2013-06-17 12:15:13 AM  
I've never understood how they can be used as evidence anyway, unless the guy bites into a piece of molding clay and leaves it at a crime scene that is.  What bruising is left on skin can hardly be a definitive result, there's just to many variables to take into account, the elasticity of a persons skin, how hard they person bit down and how long ago the marks were made can all have an effect on the result.
 
2013-06-17 12:23:46 AM  

famousp: ...prove his innocence.

Uh, doesn't the burden of proof say that he should never have to do this?


AFAIK, the burden of proof gets switched to the defendant on an appeal.
 
2013-06-17 12:27:17 AM  

Gunther: BafflerMeal: Good. Bite marks have the least 'science' of any of the CSI methods everyone feels are awesome. Hair analysis is next on the list.

Blood spatter pattern analysis and arson analysis have probably got it beat. Ooh, and polygraphs, though they're thankfully on their way out.

Honestly, it's pretty terrifying how many BS ways there are for innocent people to be found guilty.


...and it's doubly terrifying that, for every pseudoscience laid to rest, it seems like two new ones pop up in its place.

Fact is, there's really not much science in the so-called "forensic sciences," as a whole. It's just a grab bag of investigative techniques, developed on the fly by practitioners in the field, and handed down to subsequent generations as part of their craft. It actually takes a stunning amount of credulity and scientific illiteracy to think there ever could be much empirical validity to such methods...

Of course, scientific illiteracy is one thing cops and lawyers are not short on...ditto the American public, at large. And so the beat goes on...
 
2013-06-17 12:57:59 AM  

flemardo: That is crap. I'm sure it is hard to tell average bites apart but I can see it as a way to exclude. Bite abnormalities should be used, crap like doubled teeth, extreme gaps, missing teeth can easily include and exclude people from the potential list. You shouldn't be able to prosecute with it but it should be a useful tool.


Well, that's the problem, no doubt. It was originally used to show things like badly misaligned teeth, missing or doubled teeth as you say, over/underbites, broken teeth or dental appliances....but now you've got "experts" who can allegedly find tiny chips in teeth in the "bite mark" on a badly decomposed body that's been run over by a bulldozer (a case I saws on the old "Forensic Files" show).

And if that's the ONLY evidence the prosecutor has to convict (or a defendant has to exonerate) then that shouldn't be enough.
 
2013-06-17 01:18:03 AM  
studiolicensinginc.files.wordpress.com

Wanted for questionning.
 
2013-06-17 02:21:14 AM  

BarkingUnicorn: NIXON YOU DOLT!!!!!: Yes please: And really, there's no way to prove that no two fingerprints are alike. In all likelihood, there are some out there that are identical to all available means of testing.

that's because the full pattern isn't compared. points are compared. and there is a lot of debate over how many matching points there should be to consider it a definitive "match." Hell, by the sheer numbers of it, someone else on the planet may share your DNA profile.

"a systematic search of the 65,000 felons in the Arizona database revealed that there were 122 pairs that matched at 9 of 13 loci. Twenty pairs matched at 10 loci."


Interesting article.  Reminded me about a story I read about John Scarne.  He would be at a gathering of about 40 or so people and bet someone that there were two people there that shared a birthday.  I'm already at the bottom of my beer so I couldn't be arsed to look up or calculate the actual number, but it was a suprisingly low number in the pool where it was likely.
 
2013-06-17 02:52:34 AM  

Bumblefark: Fact is, there's really not much science in the so-called "forensic sciences," as a whole. It's just a grab bag of investigative techniques, developed on the fly by practitioners in the field, and handed down to subsequent generations as part of their craft. It actually takes a stunning amount of credulity and scientific illiteracy to think there ever could be much empirical validity to such methods...


In a lot of cases they're no better than random chance. I'm told arson investigators in particular are worth about as much as a coin flip - there's just no real way to tell how a fire started once it's burned itself out.
 
2013-06-17 03:07:32 AM  

Gyrfalcon: flemardo: That is crap. I'm sure it is hard to tell average bites apart but I can see it as a way to exclude. Bite abnormalities should be used, crap like doubled teeth, extreme gaps, missing teeth can easily include and exclude people from the potential list. You shouldn't be able to prosecute with it but it should be a useful tool.

Well, that's the problem, no doubt. It was originally used to show things like badly misaligned teeth, missing or doubled teeth as you say, over/underbites, broken teeth or dental appliances....but now you've got "experts" who can allegedly find tiny chips in teeth in the "bite mark" on a badly decomposed body that's been run over by a bulldozer (a case I saws on the old "Forensic Files" show).

And if that's the ONLY evidence the prosecutor has to convict (or a defendant has to exonerate) then that shouldn't be enough.


That is the real problem.  Things that are evidence, but tainted with "expert" testimony, or otherwise manipulated to appear to be something more concrete than they are.

Between ignorant jurors and lawyers that seek to abuse the system instead of seek justice and cops that are willing to fark anyone over just so they can close a case and judges that decide to influence the proceedings based on who they decide they want to believe, etc etc.

Add all that up and we've got a more or less corrupt/useless justice system with very little of it being impartial as it was intended.  It was great to start, at least in theory, but it's just a ridiculous shambles now.

fark my peers, I want a jury of experts, and no lawyers.  Just show them the evidence in a room with a camera of them discussing the evidence, having not seen or heard the accused at all. Does this stuff prove guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt?
/over simplified, but you get the idea
//I don't want 12 morons deciding my fate based on what lies either side or the judge tells them, or based on my appearance, or the fact that my lawyer looks like a skank, etc.  Why?  Because I didn't do a damn thing and that's my best shot at not getting punished for something someone else actually did do, to employ impartial people who have an understanding of the logical/scientific processes in on display.
 
2013-06-17 03:18:59 AM  

Gunther: Bumblefark: Fact is, there's really not much science in the so-called "forensic sciences," as a whole. It's just a grab bag of investigative techniques, developed on the fly by practitioners in the field, and handed down to subsequent generations as part of their craft. It actually takes a stunning amount of credulity and scientific illiteracy to think there ever could be much empirical validity to such methods...

In a lot of cases they're no better than random chance. I'm told arson investigators in particular are worth about as much as a coin flip - there's just no real way to tell how a fire started once it's burned itself out.


6 of one, half a dozen of another.  I can see where it would be possible to determine quite a lot.  But as mentioned above, it should be an investigation, not a guest of the prosecution/defense.  "Go look at X, tell us if you find anything, no pressure"  No information about the case, no MO of the defendant.  Remove as much bias as possible.

Have 3 experts go over the scene, all supervised with no communication or case details at all.  Find the cause of the fire, show your work. Maybe give each a good independent scientific review (IE will gas leave a residue like X?  Does that chemical react the way he said?)

If they all agree odds are pretty good they know what they're talking about.
 
2013-06-17 03:42:13 AM  

Gunther: Bumblefark: Fact is, there's really not much science in the so-called "forensic sciences," as a whole. It's just a grab bag of investigative techniques, developed on the fly by practitioners in the field, and handed down to subsequent generations as part of their craft. It actually takes a stunning amount of credulity and scientific illiteracy to think there ever could be much empirical validity to such methods...

In a lot of cases they're no better than random chance. I'm told arson investigators in particular are worth about as much as a coin flip - there's just no real way to tell how a fire started once it's burned itself out.


Sounds about right to me.

My personal favorite are drug dogs. I remember being pulled aside in an airport when I was 18. Long story short, doggie decided I had drugs on me. (Nope.) The officers were pretty pissed when I wouldn't cop to anything, or tell them where I hid the drugs in my luggage that they were in the process of pulling apart, seam by seam.

After an hour or so, annoyed, I told them, "look, your dog made a mistake." The handler indignantly retorted, "our dogs are never wrong!" I asked him how he even knew that the dog decided I had drugs.

Him: "The dog alerted on you."
Me: "What does that mean...'alerted.' What does a dog do when he 'alerts'?"
Him: "He sits down."
Me: *blinks* "...what, like, Indian-style? Or some other way that isn't exactly the same as any other dog sitting down, for every other reason that a dog sits down?"

/Probably didn't put the point across quite so lucidly at the time. Doubt it would have mattered a bit if I did...
 
2013-06-17 04:41:40 AM  

Loren: Yeah. I read about a case, a woman had a baby on welfare. They did a DNA to try to identify the father--and it came back saying she wasn't the mother. They were trying to accuse her of fraud, never mind that it was done right there in the hospital where she had the baby. Turns out she was a chimera.


Yep, Lydia Fairchild.  I think she actually got arrested for it at some point.
 
2013-06-17 04:49:51 AM  

Bumblefark: Him: "The dog alerted on you."
Me: "What does that mean...'alerted.' What does a dog do when he 'alerts'?"
Him: "He sits down."
Me: *blinks* "...what, like, Indian-style? Or some other way that isn't exactly the same as any other dog sitting down, for every other reason that a dog sits down?"

/Probably didn't put the point across quite so lucidly at the time. Doubt it would have mattered a bit if I did...


I can at least verify that the sitting down thing is real.  They do that because barking can send the wrong message.

I hope you got compensation for the damages to your luggage.  If they ripped apart seams...
 
2013-06-17 01:52:05 PM  

Bumblefark: My personal favorite are drug dogs. I remember being pulled aside in an airport when I was 18. Long story short, doggie decided I had drugs on me. (Nope.) The officers were pretty pissed when I wouldn't cop to anything, or tell them where I hid the drugs in my luggage that they were in the process of pulling apart, seam by seam.


A lot of the time with drug dogs, the dog is reacting in response to the cop. The cop sees some dreadlocked college student with a "legalize it" T-shirt, his body language changes and the dog picks up on it.
 
Displayed 50 of 53 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report