Is bite-mark evidence accurate?

[Disir]

W hen Gerard Richardson stood trial in Somerset County in 1995 for the brutal murder of a 19-year-old Elizabeth woman left for dead in a ditch in Bernards, a forensic dentist testified there was no question it was Richardson who left a bite mark on the woman’s body.

The testimony of Dr. Ira Titunik, a forensic odontologist, is largely what led to the conviction of Richardson for the February 1994 murder of Monica Reyes and a 30-year prison sentence handed down to him.

But last year, analysis of DNA extracted from saliva left in the bite mark proved it wasn’t Richardson at all who had bitten the victim, but someone else who has never been identified. Richardson, 49, walked out of a courtroom a free man in December after being wrongfully imprisoned for 19 years. He is the only defendant in New Jersey wrongfully convicted on bite-mark evidence to be exonerated.

His exoneration and that of 24 other people across the country who were mistakenly linked to crimes through analysis of bite marks has some in criminal justice circles questioning whether that type of evidence has any place in a courtroom.

http://www.mycentraljersey.com/article/20140210/NJNEWS/302100005/Is-bite-mark-evidence-accurate-?nclick_check=1

More junk science?

 

[whitehall]

The science works but the expertise of the "scientists" is sometimes in question.

 

[Disir]

The science works but the expertise of the "scientists" is sometimes in question.

I'm hoping they just pull that until they can produce some studies or force the "scientists" to 'fess up in court what it cannot do.

 

[whitehall]

Forensic experts have to be qualified in court before they can testify. If the prosecution is careless and the defense is lazy and the judge is dozing off mistakes can happen.

 

[Mr. H.]

That reminds me- need to watch my next Dexter episode.

 

[BobPlumb]

Quincy (jack klugman) wouldn't get it wrong!