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.
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.
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.
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.