The National Institute For Standards and Technology has said bite mark analysis “lacks sufficient scientific foundation,” but it has been used in hundreds of cases. NBC News’ Ken Dilanian has more from a man who was wrongly convicted due to bite mark analysis.
» Subscribe to NBC News: https://www.youtube.com/user/NBCNews
NBC News Digital is a collection of innovative and powerful news brands that deliver compelling, diverse and engaging news stories. NBC News Digital features NBCNews.com, MSNBC.com, TODAY.com, Nightly News, Meet the Press, Dateline, and the existing apps and digital extensions of these respective properties. We deliver the best in breaking news, live video coverage, original journalism and segments from your favorite NBC News Shows.
Connect with NBC News Online!
Breaking News Alerts: https://link.nbcnews.com/join/5cj/breaking-news-signup?cid=sm_npd_nn_yt_bn-clip_190621
Visit NBCNews.Com: https://www.nbcnews.com/
Find NBC News on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/NBCNews
Follow NBC News on Twitter: https://twitter.com/NBCNews
Get more of NBC News delivered to your inbox: nbcnews.com/newsletters
#Science #Technology #TrueCrime
source
Once again, Forensic Science is neither forensic nor science. And this forensic dentistry has been known to be garbage for over two decades.
This is still happening today; my son was convicted using bite mark evidence; he has maintained his innocence from the beginning. 3.5 years in jail waiting for a trial. Life in prison without parole. We have filed an appeal which will take many years to be heard. Sold our home to pay the legal fees. At this point, I am just hoping to live long enough to see him free.
1:46 To be fair, sheepshead fish and pacu fish have really human looking teeth, eerily so (look it up). Anyone would mistake a bite from them for a human one.
Guess Ted Bundy is an innocent man
Really sad how the US justice system is propagated in media as so special and competent. In reality they rely on questionable methods like this and polygraphs and literally put people in prison for life without definite proof. Shame on you USA.
Those court certified examiners NEED to be put behind bars. Their confidence has taken something impossible to give back.
In psychology, we're starting to see that even eyewitness testimony can be unreliable in court. In stressful situations, the brain can misremember things, add things to memories that didn't happen, and create memories that didn't happen. The brain is extremely powerful and extremely hard for us to understand with where we are in science right now.
if people can go to prison for life, imagine how much power a dentist has. I know that there were accurate moulds of my teeth. Im australian though so im not sure if US dentists do the same, but i imagine they probably do for those who require advanced treatments (i had bracers for close to 10 years).
At the end of the day If such moulds exist an upset dentist could crime on their own and frame an innocent person, or someone could corrupt a dentist in order to gain access to moulds and frame others
Oh no bite marks were used against Ted Bundy
What a nightmare that would be- to be wrongly convicted of a crime you didn't commit only to have to rot in jail? Ugh.
I want to know how much jail time the "scientist" guy will get for cashing in on "expert testimony".
He sent all those innocent people to prison for years and years.
He needs at least one year for every year his victims served, then additional time for his crime.
And tell everyone in the prison who he is.
We finally taking on bunk science re: bite marks? Love to see it.
Well that bites
Bite marks could be used to EXCLUDE people … if someone had missing teeth, for example and the bites had a full set (or vice versa). But they aren't unique enough to be conclusive.
Scientists have known for YEARS that bite mark analysis is unreliable. People who work in the justice system know it's unreliable. Ask yourself why it's still used to lock people up.
33 years? 🥴 Oh the ascended masters are saying they are there to support your creative endeavors. Yeah the judge was probably a left hand 🙄
Another misleading part, even of this story, is that junk science is NOT science. It is evidence used improperly.
@DrewDipsy no, genius. in the case of Bundy, there was tons of other evidence, that's why he was convicted. but the bite mark alone is bs evidence, and it didn't work in other cases, especially when the bite mark is the only physical evidence in the case – that's what they are talking about, genius.
So your saying Ted bundy is innocent?
Wait, what??? If the last guy admits guilt, he goes free? And if not, he gets out away? What kind of backwards time loop did i wake up to? Can someone explain?
It's awful that this happens so often.
What a disaster
All the government cares about is getting comviction as not getting one opens them to legal actions
Self described experts include body language experts and lie detectors.
If the bites don't fit ya got to acquit!
I'm so glad we are finally talking about it! I researched about bs that is 'bite mark' evidence years ago, and I was worried about it, and how many poor, innocent people are in prisons because of this bs evidence, ever since! It's crazy how nonsensical the bite mark thing is if you read detailed analysis etc. And the case with Bundy expert: this is exactly the problem. He was elevated to some ridiculous, untouchable status as a 'bite mark expert' just because Bundy was indeed guilty. But the thing is, Bundy was convicted because all other evidence clearly showed it was him, not just a bite mark, and that was the one exception when it did match, but that doesn't make this type of evidence reliable. In Budy's case, it was just a lucky guess!! So this Bundy expert should never had any last or ultimate word in other cases when other evidence was not good enough. So glad NBC is talking about it, I hope more and more people will educate themselves about this absurd!
When the moon hits the sand and an eel bites your hand
that's a moray ❤
“Your evidence is junk and should be thrown out.” “Ok, but first just admit that you did it and you will be released’” … 🖕
Notice that they did not let him out until they found the real criminal? Anyone that is in prison without sufficient, beyond a reasonable doubt, evidence should be set free.
Trust the $cience.
Why does the CDC endorse "Junk Science". They told us the COVID jab would stop transmission, when the "Real" science showed it was only less than 1% absolute risk reduction. That means it was 99 % ineffective and the CDC and Biden told us it was effective.
Unfortunately that level of protection came with side effects that hurt millions. They called that " Safe".
Biden and CDC promoters of junk science 😢
yay Lets go kieth!
it's science alright, science for maga
Who offers a deal like “admit guilt and go free”?
Everybody knew it was junk science back then. But it was a necessary evil to get Bundy, at least that was the argument.
Yeah, as a preschool teacher, i have witnessed many bite marks. They're probable cause, at best: you can't pinpoint the individual who did it, only gauge the size of their mouth/head and narrow down your suspect pool from there.
Also, humans can change their dental patterns with any number of methods. So this "evidence" is moot.
You could say this is…a lot to chew on 😎
This, blood spatter, and much more are compelling to a jury but not to anyone with a basic level of skepticism.
They said the same thing back when Ted Bundy bit the butt cheek of a college girl that it was JUNK SCIENCE obviously Ted was guilty
Thank you The Innocence Project ❤
The system needs to be defunded and rebuilt.
The most insane part of this is that they offered to ‘let him go’ after 38years if he pleaded guilty. But if he insisted on being innocent he’d serve a life sentence.
most of the "forensic sciences" are anything but scientific.
Wasn't this already a plot point in the last season of The Wire??
Theres a few factors that went into this case's outcome. •The expert who has credibility from previous cases and expertise in their field of study. •Technology and SOPs which has advanced since 1983. •And the judicial system(s) which needs to adjudicate the case faster to begin working on the next one; and gain merit for "justice."