Your smile could cost you your freedom.
Both were tried and convicted of murder in unrelated cases. Both of their convictions were based on testimony by so-called bite mark experts, who claimed to have matched marks found on victims with each of the defendant’s “bite mark.” In both cases, the prosecution relied heavily on the “matching” bite marks as proof of the defendants’ guilt. In both cases, the bite mark evidence was just plain nonsense.
A new report released this week by the President’s Counsel of Advisors for Science and Technology (PCAST), offered yet another devastating critique of bite mark evidence:
available scientific evidence strongly suggests that [bite mark] examiners not only cannot identify the source of bite mark with reasonable accuracy, they cannot…
View original post 200 more words