Bite mark evidence is complete bullshit. There was a great short series of eps of Last Podcast on the Left breaking down how it was a cash grab building up the "science" and how it's not at all reliable. The article points this out in a line or two about courts not accepting this testimony anymore, but it's worth hearing about the "expert" who seized the opportunity to "legitimize" the practice.
this post was submitted on 29 May 2024
15 points (100.0% liked)
Excellent Reads
1472 readers
37 users here now
Are you tired of clickbait and the current state of journalism? This community is meant to remind you that excellent journalism still happens. While not sticking to a specific topic, the focus will be on high-quality articles and discussion around their topics.
Politics is allowed, but should not be the main focus of the community.
Submissions should be articles of medium length or longer. As in, it should take you 5 minutes or more to read it. Article series’ would also qualify.
Please either submit an archive link, or include it in your summary.
Rules:
- Common Sense. Civility, etc.
- Server rules.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Yeah for sure. It's a shame that so much of forensic science is just vibes. There's been a big push though recently to actually do the science part of forensic science, which I appreciate. They did also interview the dentist that testified in the case, who admitted that his methods were less than airtight and that in this day and age he would only use bite mark analysis to rule out suspects rather than secure guilt.
Also catch the prosecutor convincing the jury about the evidence not ruling out that he was at the scene. Innocent until proven guilty my ass.
Fantastic read. Frustrating AF though