U.S. Mississippi Death Row Case Faults Bite-Mark Forensics

SEPT. 15, 2014

NEW YORK TIMES

In one of the country’s first nationally televised criminal trials, of the smirking serial murderer Ted Bundy in Florida in 1979, jurors and viewers alike were transfixed as dental experts showed how Mr. Bundy’s crooked teeth resembled a bite on a 20-year-old victim.

Mr. Bundy was found guilty and the obscure field of “forensic dentistry” won a place in the public imagination.

Since then, expert testimony matching body wounds with the dentition of the accused has played a role in hundreds of murder and rape cases, sometimes helping to put defendants on death row.

But over this same period, mounting evidence has shown that matching body wounds to a suspect’s dentition is prone to bias and unreliable…..

The lack of a scientific basis for bite-mark identification was stressed by the National Academy of Sciences in a 2009 report on forensics. The academy said that such analysis could not reliably identify one individual, among all others, as the source of a bite.

Bite marks on the skin change over time and are easily distorted, the academy said, while there is a huge potential for bias when an expert is asked to match a bite wound with the teeth of a known suspect.

Dr. Peter W. Loomis, a consultant in dental forensics in Albuquerque and president of the discipline’s professional body, the American Board of Forensic Odontology, did not dispute the academy’s conclusions but said that bite-mark analysis still had a useful role in court.

Read more

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/16/us/mississippi-death-row-appeal-highlights-shortcomings-of-bite-mark-identifications.html?module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3Ar&_r=0

Bennie Starks

NORTHWESTERN LAW

BLUHM LEGAL CLINIC

Center on Wrongful Convictions

A prosecutor finally did the right thing – 26 years after a wrongful conviction

— Rob Warden

Bennie Starks had been behind bars for two decades when he was freed after DNA testing excluded him as the source of semen recovered from his alleged victim in 2006, but his exoneration took another six years.

Starks was arrested shortly after a 69-year-old Waukegan woman reported on January 18, 1986, that she had been pulled into a ravine, beaten, bitten, and raped by a man who left his coat at the scene. A dry-cleaning receipt in the coat pocket led police to Starks, who acknowledged that the coat was his—but insisted that it had been stolen from him at a bar.

The evidence against Starks, 26, seemed overwhelming: The victim positively identified him. A forensic dentist, Dr. Russell Schneider, of Waukegan, concluded that his teeth matched a bite mark on the victim. A state forensic scientist, Sharon Thomas-Boyd, testified that serology testing—this was before the advent of DNA forensic testing—included him among possible sources of semen recovered from the victim’s vagina and underpants.

A Lake County jury found him guilty of both rape and aggravated assault. He was sentenced to 60 years in prison.

A decade later, the New York Innocence Project accepted the case and sought DNA testing. After the Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the conviction in 2002, a judge ordered the testing over the strenuous objection of Lake County State’s Attorney Michael Waller.

A vaginal swab take n from the victim immediately after the crime could not be found, but testing of a semen stain in her underpants excluded Starks—clearly indicating that he was innocent, given that the victim had stated that she had not had consensual sex with anyone in the two weeks preceding the rape. The testing also showed that, contrary to Thomas-Boyd’s trial testimony, the serology results had excluded Starks as the source of semen.

In response to media inquiries, Assistant State’s Attorney Michael Mermel, the head of felony prosecutions under Waller, maintained that the DNA results from the underpants did not prove Starks innocent. The only thing that could help Starks, Mermel said, would be his exclusion as the source of semen from inside the victim’s body. That, of course, seemed impossible at the time because a vaginal swab taken from the victim immediately after the crime was believed to have been lost or destroyed.

A few weeks later, however, the Northern Illinois Crime Laboratory located the swab, and DNA testing eliminated Starks as the source of semen on it—that is, as the source of semen from inside the victim’s body. Mermel then contended that the victim, who had moved to Mexico and since died, had not told the truth when she denied having consensual sex with anyone in the weeks preceding the rape.

Based on the DNA results, the Illinois Appellate Court reversed the conviction and ordered a retrial in 2006. Starks was released on bond. On the eve of a retrial, the prosecution dropped the rape charges, with the possibility of reinstating them later. But the aggravated battery conviction, which had not been contested on appeal, remained—even though, if Starks had not raped the victim, neither had he beaten her.

In 2011, Mermel resigned in the wake of a New York Times Magazine article exposing bizarre theories he expressed about why DNA was irrelevant in a series of Lake County cases. Michael Waller announced shortly thereafter that he would not seek reelection when his term expired in 2012.

In August 2012, the Illinois Appellate Court vacated Starks’s aggravated battery charge, still leaving open the possibility of a retrial on that charge. It was not until January 7, 2013, until the aggravated battery charges were dismissed by State’s Attorney Michael Nerheim, who had been elected to succeed Waller two months earlier.


Janesville man’s invention changed forensic science 25 years ago

GazetteXtra.com
Tuesday, March 19, 2013 • JANESVILLE, WI
by NEIL JOHNSON Contact )   Saturday, March 16, 2013

 

JANESVILLE — Janesville engineer and physicist Bill Hyzer was renowned for decades as a pioneer in high-speed photography.

Using cameras that seemed to magnify and even freeze time at 8,000 frames per second, Hyzer showed scientists how a fly lands on a ceiling.

Those quirky, stop-action photographs of bullets exploding through such objects as cucumbers and soda cans? Hyzer’s work.

Hyzer, 88, has poured his life into six decades of research that includes a study of how geckos cling to glass surfaces and the development of electronic switches for a lunar landing module. His data analyses of lake freeze-thaw cycles are used in international studies on global warming and climate change.

Yet perhaps Hyzer’s most groundbreaking and unsung achievement was an invention he devised in a single afternoon. It also is the reason he was honored Friday by the national American Board of Forensic Odontology.

At a lunch meeting at a Holiday Inn in Freeport, Ill., in 1986, Hyzer said he listened to Kansas native Dr. Thomas Krause, an expert in forensic odontology, or “bite-mark” science, explain a conundrum to him.

At the time, criminal investigators had no tool other than the standard, one-dimensional ruler to measure and give scale to human bite marks often found on the bodies of violent crime victims. For complex reasons, the simple ruler is an unreliable tool for the job.

Hyzer sketched a solution on the spot. The two-dimensional “ABFO No. 2”—better known as the forensic bite-mark scale—was born.

The simple, L-shaped measuring tool changed Hyzer’s life and forever altered forensic science and the field of crime scene investigation.

The bite mark scale’s main use—a tool to help identify bodies through dental records and identify violent criminals from bite marks they leave on victims—has made Hyzer renowned.

More than 25 years since that Holiday Inn discussion, crime scene investigators in nearly every country in the world use Hyzer’s small, laminated plastic ruler while photographing everything from bite marks to tire tracks to bullet holes in walls.

Practically every crime lab and medical examiner’s office in the country uses Hyzer’s scale, and in most states in the U.S. the scale’s use is almost a mandate.

Hyzer now is 88. To date, about three million of his bite mark scales have been sold, according to members of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences.

His scale was a simple yet ingenious solution to a decades-old problem in forensic science.

To use bite marks as crime evidence, investigators must make exact photographic records of the marks. That’s done by taking pictures that include a measuring instrument laid next to the marks to show scale.

But a one-dimensional measuring tool—a simple ruler—cannot reliably give scale to photographic images because if photos are captured at even the slightest angle, uncorrectable distortion can occur.

A sketchbook from 1986 shows Bill Hyzer’s solution to allow criminal investigators to measure and give scale to human bite marks on the bodies of victims. The resulting tool has changed forensic science and crime scene investigations. Hyzer, 88, was honored Friday by the American Board of Forensic Odontology.

Photo by Hyzer family

A sketchbook from 1986 shows Bill Hyzer’s solution to allow criminal investigators to measure and give scale to human bite marks on the bodies of victims. The resulting tool has changed forensic science and crime scene investigations. Hyzer, 88, was honored Friday by the American Board of Forensic Odontology.

“You needed to devise a scale that measured in two dimensions, not one,” Hyzer said. “So I sat there at the Holiday Inn and sketched out the solution on a piece of paper.”

The design is simple: a right-angle, two-sided ruler with circles at each of its three points. The circles are used to define and justify any measurable plane. That corrects the problem of distortion in crime photos.

The scale also has grayscale markers, which ensure perfect photographic color reproduction.

Hyzer had done research with lizards and flies, but he had no prior expertise with human teeth or bite marks. He almost couldn’t believe someone else hadn’t thought of the scale already. Yet nobody had.

“It’s the most thrilling feeling, like discovering an ancient cave that no one knew existed,” Hyzer said.

Don Simley, a forensic odontologist in Madison who presented Hyzer with his award Friday, said bite-mark analysis has proven at times to be an ineffective way to identify criminals.

Bite-mark science has come under fire in the past after some cases in which DNA evidence later proved people were wrongly convicted based on bite-mark evidence.

But the science often helps identify bodies that have been burned beyond recognition, and Simley said use of Hyzer’s scale once helped solve a case in which a young child choked to death on soap while being disciplined by a parent.

The child’s bite marks were in a bar of soap at home.

Hyzer did not get rich from his invention. In fact, he never even patented it.

“It was my contribution to keeping people who didn’t deserve jail out of jail, and putting people in jail who should be in jail.”

Meanwhile, the scale’s inventor is now down to just a few left. He’s given most of his supply away to family or friends.

“I’m down to two scales now. It irks me that I’d have to go and buy one,” Hyzer said.

Forensic Failings: How to Improve the Forensic Sciences and Prevent Wrongful Convictions

New York Society of Forensic Dentistry September Meeting:

Monday, September 24, 2012 7:00 PM at NYU College of Dentistry 24th Street & First Avenue – Room 612

 

Summary: Chris Fabricant, Director of Strategic Litigation at the Innocence Project, will discuss the groundbreaking 2009 National Academy of Sciences report that called for comprehensive overhaul of the forensic science system. Through DNA exoneration cases, the Innocence Project has identified improper and unvalidated forensic science as one of the leading causes of wrongful conviction. Mr. Fabricant will provide case examples on how forensic disciplines, particularly pattern and impression evidence, including fingerprints, tire tread analysis, bite mark analysis and other disciplines have contributed to wrongful convictions–and explain how federal reforms can help significantly strengthen the field.

 

Chris Fabricant

Joseph Flom Special Counsel

Chris Fabricant is the Joseph Flom Special Counsel, Director of Strategic Ligation. Before joining the Innocence Project, he was a clinical law professor and the director of the Criminal Justice Clinic at the Pace University School of Law. Mr. Fabricant has years of criminal defense experience at the state, federal, trial and appellate levels with The Bronx Defenders and Appellate Advocates. He was also a pro se law clerk in the Southern District of New York, where he focused on prisoners’ rights litigation. Mr. Fabricant is the author of the book Busted! (HarperCollins) and his scholarship has been published by the NYU Review of Law & Social Change and the Drexel Law Review. Mr. Fabricant received his J.D. with honors and a Corpus Juris Secundum distinction in criminal law from The George Washington University in 1997.

State Attorney Ignores Science, Impedes Starks’ Full Exoneration

From The Innocence Project

Today’s Innocence Blog

Posted: 17 Aug 2012 12:30 PM PDT

Four months after former Illinois inmate Bennie Starks was exonerated of a rape conviction that DNA evidence proves he did not commit, the Lake County State’s Attorney’s Office continues to fight efforts to exonerate him of a battery conviction from the same crime. A column by Eric Zorn in today’s Chicago Tribune says 22-year veteran State’s Attorney Michael Waller has a penchant for ignoring scientific evidence and is inclined to develop peculiar theories.

The victim, now deceased, testified that she was attacked and raped by the same man. Earlier this summer, an appeals court ruled that the DNA evidence undermines Starks’ battery conviction and sent it back to the trial court. Waller didn’t see it that way and petitioned the court for a rehearing.

Prosecutors argued in court that the traces of semen must have come from an earlier sexual partner of the victim and been present due to her “bad hygiene.”

The problem with this new theory was that the sample was fresh – no more than 30 hours old according to expert trial testimony – and the victim was on record that she hadn’t had sex with anyone for at least three days prior to the attack.

Zorn cites other cases in which Waller’s office has exhibited a preference for outlandish theories over solid scientific evidence.

Juan Rivera convicted in the 1992 rape and murder of 11-year-old Holly Stoker in Waukegan. When testing excluded Rivera as the source of DNA found in the victim, prosecutors under Waller argued that the little girl had consensual sex with a never-identified boyfriend prior to the attack.

Jerry Hobbs arrested and held without bond in the 2005 slaying of his daughter Laura, 8, and her friend Krystal Tobias, 9, in a Zion park. In 2007, when DNA testing of semen found in his daughter excluded Hobbs, the Walleristas insisted that Laura must have been playing near where a couple had had sex, gotten semen on her fingers and wiped it on herself.

Read the full column.

A Statement Why Court Opinions On Bitemark Analysis Should Be Limited

By C.Michael Bowers

December, 1996

Let’s think for a moment concerning what our wish list would be for bitemark analysis, our profession’s only controversial subject. I would start with an admission and publication from the ABFO of the noted and significant weaknesses that exist at this time in the field. Inferring from its contents, the ABFO’s Guidelines and Standards imply that all things have not been going well. This document expresses some technique recommendations and establishes a few limits on the behavior and language used by forensic dentists. It is not comprehensive since it is silent regarding the scientific basis of dental “uniqueness” determinations by our membership, but its intentions are good and progress is being made. Now is the time to analyze the basic weaknesses and failings of this field’s scientific underpinnings. This article is a short discussion of the biggest weakness and contains a suggestion to minimize the current high degree of risk that exists when bitemark analysis is presented in court.

Taking a historical viewpoint, the early (Texas, 1954)(1) acceptance of bitemark analysis by the U.S. appellate courts really proved a disservice to all participants and future trials. For the sake of this discussion, discount the apparent details of the cases like Marx(2) (California, 1975) which generally contained significant three-dimensional patterns in skin injuries or foodstuffs. The quality of these cases of precedent might not be representative of the majority which followed. There was, however, little science involved in the ultimate opinions dentists delivered in any of these cases. The appellate opinion in Marx realized this when bitemark admissibility was approved on the basis of the “trier of fact” (usually the jury) making their own determination from the evidence presented. Jury acceptance of bitemark testimony is no substitute for population studies and reliability testing. The “generally accepted” methods in use haven’t changed much and the glaring weakness is in the lack of pragmatic determination of “uniqueness” as seen in bitemarks on skin and inanimate objects. Hundreds of cases have occurred since the 1970’s and the issue of individuation has not been resolved scientifically. This place’s odontology at the bottom of the list of other forensic disciplines. Maybe Questioned Document Examination is worse off. There is no reliable way of saying, other than colloquially, that one or more tooth marks seen in a wound are conclusively unique to just one person in the population. Because of this vacuum, value judgements abound in our discipline. Proffering the testifying expert’s years of experience is a popular means of “proving” uniqueness.” He or she has seen more bitemarks. This misses the scientific point and is misleading to a lay jury that is given the responsibility of filtering good science from bad. The confidence level of expert testimony must be based on data available to BOTH the dentist and the court. This scientific data does not exist. Until this changes, the admissibility of bitemark analysis should be limited to a “possible” determination. The odontologist doesn’t have a basis to expand an opinion beyond that. Marks in skin can be spatially associated to the edges of teeth by trained dentists. That is within the realm of physical comparison methodology. The “unique” or “reasonable dental certainty” description currently used to characterize a positive match are not supported by anything other than personal opinion. That is the reason for this proposed limitation on bitemark testimony.

There have been and will continue to be cases where the defendant’s teeth and an unknown bite pattern shows a common pattern and shape. The determination of common similarities equaling a finding of uniqueness can’t be made on such general features. The equation using values of 1 to 4 (one being common) for these generic features such as arch width and tooth width should not be 1x1x1x1=4. The Milone(3) case and its derivative commentaries(4),(5) should be read by everyone to underscore this limitation.

I also propose that a bifurcation must take place in possible value of different types of bitemarks. A three dimensional bite, as in Marx (on a nose), allows for much more accuracy in the “wound to teeth” comparison. Questions of spatial relationships are substantially answered and discrepancies leading to subjective visualization are minimized. The answer is demonstrable and the commonly used syllogism of “its much like a toolmark” is applicable. A two-dimensional wound is a separate and much greater challenge. These cases lack “toolmark” clarity and are the foundation for uncontrolled opinion and poor sensitivity and specificity in analysis.

Research must progress to raise the current anecdotal level of individuation in contemporary bitemark analysis. A concerted effort to find funding and research facilities has to be done by this organization. It will be the cheapest assurance that our future in court will be positive, rather than controversial. After the research is done, the “possible”might then become “unique.”

Footnotes

1. Doyle v. State, 159 Tex. C.R.310, 263 S.W.2d 779 (Jan 20, 1954)

2. People v. Marx, 54 Cal.App3d 100, 126 Cal.Rptr. 350 (Dec. 29, 1975)

3. People v. Milone, 43 Ill.App.3d 385, 356 N.E.2d 1350 (Nov. 12, 1976)

4. U.S. ex rel. Milone v. Camp, Slip opinion (U.S. Dist. Court, N.D.IL; Sept 29, 1992)

5. Milone v. Camp, 22 F.3d 693 (7th Cir.) (Apr. 21, 1994)

About the Author: C.Michael Bowers provides expert and criminal litigation support in matters pertaining to forensic dentistry and DNA profiling. Originally published at Vol. 4, No. 2, December 1996; American Board of Forensic Odontology Newsletter.

Cases Where DNA Revealed that Bite Mark Analysis Led to Wrongful Arrests and Convictions

From the Innocence Project     http://www.innocenceproject.org/

Forensic science errors are a leading cause of wrongful convictions nationwide. Scientific errors, fraud or limitations were a factor in 63% of the first 86 DNA exoneration cases, according to an August 2005 analysis of the cases published in Science magazine. These forensic science mishaps include everything from lab analysts who committed fraud to expert witnesses who relied on analyses of forensic disciplines which have never been adequately validated to identify a perpetrator such as: hair, bullets, handwriting, footprints, or bite marks. Using DNA – which provides a precise identification that other methods cannot – wrongful convictions were exposed years or even decades later.

Bite mark analysis is particularly troubling because of the almost complete absence of validated rules, regulations, or processes for accreditation that establish standards for experts or the testimony they provide. Unlike other areas of forensic analysis, forensic dentists are generally self-employed rather than employees of an accredited lab and hence they can avoid even that layer of oversight. Moreover, no government entity has ever reviewed the validity of bite mark evidence. “[B]ite mark analysis has never passed through the rigorous scientific examination that is common to most normal sciences,” according to the 2002 book Modern Scientific Evidence: The Law and Science of Expert Testimony.

There are approximately 100 forensic odontologists in the country who have been certified by boards controlled by other odontologists – generally speaking, their friends and colleagues – but not accredited by an entity that applies scientific rigor. Much forensic odontology work involves comparing dental records to well-preserved teeth of people who died in fires or other tragedies – but comparing an accused person’s teeth to marks on a victim’s body is far more subjective, and far more prone to error. As noted in Modern Scientific Evidence, “The rate of error in bite mark identification, particularly the rate of false positive errors, appears to be quite high.” In fact, only three studies have examined the reliability of bite mark analysis. All three show serious problems. One showed an error rate – a rate of false identifications – as high as 91%. Another (conducted by the American Board of Forensic Odontology) found a 63.5% rate of false identifications, and the third showed an error rate of 11.9% to 22% of false identifications among forensic odontologists and noted that the “poor performance” is cause for concern because it has “very serious implications for the accused, the discipline, and society.”

The Innocence Project believes that all forensic disciplines need to be scientifically validated through truly independent research and peer review before the methodologies are used in criminal cases where life and liberty are at stake. Moreover, even if the methodology is valid, bias, incompetence, or a lack of adequate internal controls can compromise the integrity of the results. The Innocence Project’s position is based on fundamental principles of good science and the disturbing narratives of innocent people, arrested and convicted of crimes based on bite mark analysis, only to eventually be proven innocent through DNA testing.

Following are five cases where people were convicted based largely on bite mark analysis, only to be proven innocent through DNA years later:

Willie Jackson in Louisiana
DNA testing exonerated Willie Jackson in 2006 and implicated his brother in a Louisiana rape. The victim identified Jackson as the assailant in a photo array and also in a live line-up. His brother also appeared in a line-up but was not identified by the victim. However, Jackson lived 185 miles away from the scene of the crime, while his brother lived in the area. Several other factors tied his brother to the crime: When police searched Jackson’s mother’s house, they found a sweater with his brother’s name on it that was similar to the one described by the victim; Jackson’s mother drove a car similar to the victim’s description; and a bartender testified that he saw Jackson’s brother, and not Jackson himself, in the same bar as the victim the night of the rape. In addition to eyewitness testimony, the prosecution presented a forensic odontologist who testified that bite marks on the victim matched Jackson’s teeth. Just days after Jackson was convicted in 1989, his brother confessed to the crime but was not charged. Sixteen years later, Jackson was released based on DNA test results. In addition, a second, independent odontologist argued that the earlier finding was incorrect and that the bite marks actually matched Jackson’s brother. His brother was already serving a life sentence for an unrelated rape.

Ray Krone in Arizona
Based largely on bite mark analysis, Ray Krone was convicted of murdering a Phoenix bartender and sentenced to death plus 21 years. Krone became known as the “snaggle-tooth killer” when an impression of his jagged teeth (in a Styrofoam cup) was said to match the bite marks on the breast and neck of the murder victim. She had been fatally stabbed, and the perpetrator left behind little physical evidence. There were no fingerprints; blood at the scene matched the victim’s type; and saliva on her body came from someone with the most common blood type. There was no semen, and no DNA tests were performed. First convicted in 1992, Krone won a re-trial in 1996 and was convicted again mainly on the state’s supposed expert bite-mark testimony. His death sentence, however, was reduced to life in prison. Finally, in 2002, Krone was released after DNA testing proved that he could not have been the perpetrator. Instead, saliva and blood found on the victim matched a convicted rapist.

Calvin Washington in Texas
Calvin Washington was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison in Texas in 1987. It was alleged that Washington, either acting alone or with Joe Sidney Williams, robbed, raped, and murdered the victim. An expert witness testified that bruises on the victim’s body were bite marks that matched Williams’ teeth. A jailhouse informant claimed that he heard Washington and Williams make incriminating statements when he walked by their hotel room one night. Meanwhile, the defense presented over a dozen Waco, Texas, police officers who testified to the unreliability of the jailhouse informant. The prosecution also produced evidence that the defendants were in possession of the victim’s car and had sold items belonging to the victim on the night of the crime. Both Williams and Washington were convicted. Williams’ conviction was overturned and the prosecution declined to retry him. Washington served 13 years in prison before DNA test results exonerated him in 2001. Testing also showed that fluids taken from the victim did not come from Washington, but rather from another man, since deceased.

James O’Donnell in New York
James O’Donnell became a suspect in an attempted sodomy case on the basis of a police sketch. A Staten Island resident, having seen the sketch in the newspaper, contacted the police and named O’Donnell. The victim later identified O’Donnell in a photo array and in a live line-up, but a second witness who was also at the scene of the crime did not identify him. The victim had passed out after struggling with the assailant. He bit her on the hand and she scratched him. The bite mark was said to match impressions of O’Donnell’s teeth, but DNA testing of the saliva on the bite mark later disproved the finding. Testing of the fingernail scrapings matched the saliva and further proved that O’Donnell was not the perpetrator. He was exonerated in 2000, after over two years of wrongful incarceration.

Dan Young in Illinois
Dan Young spent 12 years in prison before DNA testing cleared his name in a Chicago murder. His conviction was based on a bite mark match and a false confession. Young was mentally handicapped and could not read or write. An initial analysis of the bite mark found a match between Young’s teeth and the bite mark, but a more recent analysis, commissioned by the defense, contradicted this finding. The odontologist who aided in Young’s conviction later said that the prosecution pushed him to exaggerate his results. Young was released in early 2005.

Bite mark analysis has also caused an unknown number of innocent men and women to be arrested and charged with crimes they did not commit. Some of these people became ensnared in police investigations on the basis of nothing more than an erroneous bite mark “match.” The following people languished in jails awaiting trial until DNA testing lead to their release:

  • In 1994, Anthony Otero of Detroit was charged with first-degree murder, rape, and larceny in the death of a 60-year-old woman. A forensic odontologist testified at a preliminary examination that Otero was “the only person in the world” who could have inflicted bite marks found on the victim’s breast and thigh. After Otero spent five months in jail awaiting trial, the state dismissed the charges after a newly available DNA test excluded him as the perpetrator.
  • Dale Morris, Jr., was arrested in 1997 based on bite mark analysis matching his dentition to a mark on a nine-year-old murder victim. Morris was a neighbor to the little girl who was found stabbed, sexually assaulted, and bitten in a field near her Florida home. He spent four months in jail until DNA tests proved his innocence.
  • A police dog led officers to the home of Edmund Burke during an investigation in the murder of a 75-year-old woman from Massachusetts. The assailant had left a bite mark on her breast. The odontologist in the case compared photos of the bite wound with a mold made from Burke’s teeth and concluded “to a reasonable scientific certainty” that Burke had made the mark. However, just weeks after his arrest, DNA taken from saliva from the bite mark was tested and Burke was released.
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 30 other followers