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 8
    More: Interesting, om nom, bite marks, hung jury, wrongful convictions, California Supreme Court, scrutiny  
•       •       •

6189 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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-06-17 12:57:59 AM
1 votes:

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 12:11:43 AM
1 votes:
"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.
2013-06-16 09:16:06 PM
1 votes:

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


People are weird.

static.artfire.com
2013-06-16 09:14:31 PM
1 votes:
But are bite marks useless as evidence, or is the a case of a forensics expert simply being an idiot?
2013-06-16 08:37:46 PM
1 votes:

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 08:09:28 PM
1 votes:

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
TWX
2013-06-16 07:50:45 PM
1 votes:
'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 07:41:49 PM
1 votes:
Good. Bite marks have the least 'science' of any of the CSI methods everyone feels are awesome. Hair analysis is next on the list.
 
Displayed 8 of 8 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report