HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Man Exonerated in 1983 Ra... » Reply #1

Response to Calista241 (Original post)

Thu Aug 27, 2020, 12:00 PM

1. Bite mark evidence has been dubious in many trials.

Animal activity can mimic bite marks, as can marks made by things like belts, ligatures and tools. The West Memphis Three case is the most infamous example of bad bite mark evidence, but disputed bite marks have occurred in other trials as well. Forensic odontology is far from worthless--bite mark evidence helped to put Ted Bundy away. It seems it has also been used to falsely convict, and then exonerate people:

One of the most notable exonerations involving bite mark evidence is the Ray Krone case. In 1992, Krone was wrongfully convicted of murder and sentenced to death. There was no physical evidence linking Krone to the crime except for a unique bite mark found on the victim’s body. At trial, a bite mark expert testified that Krone’s teeth matched the bite mark on the victim. Upon further investigation, several experts told Krone’s attorneys that the trial testimony was unreliable and the analysis was done incorrectly. Eventually, DNA evidence proved Krone’s innocence and he was released from prison in 2002.


Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Please login to view edit histories.