Forensic Friday: When Science Bites Back
How did something as flimsy as bite mark analysis ever pass for forensic science?
This week’s deep dive peels back the layers on a technique once treated like gospel in the courtroom—despite being riddled with bias, error, and guesswork.
Have you ever seen a case where bite mark testimony turned the tide?
Do you think any forensic method should be banned outright when it’s proven faulty?
Sink your teeth into this week’s post and drop your thoughts below. The Order is watching.
15 Views
There are so many examples of bite mark evidence leading to disaster in the courtroom. Ray Krone spent a decade in prison, including time on death row, before DNA proved he didn’t commit the murder bite mark “experts” swore he did.
Robert Lee Stinson lost 23 years of his life because someone claimed his teeth matched bruises on skin. And just this April, a Louisiana man’s conviction was overturned because the judge said the bite mark testimony was “not scientifically defensible.”
That’s not a red flag: it’s a crime scene in itself. How many more lives have to be wrecked before this gets tossed out for good?