A Response to a Critic of the Critics

Mark Page, Ph.D.

The author of the website http://www.bitemark.org posted an article regarding the admissibility of bitemark evidence in several cases in Texas, and spent some time discussing the supposedly ‘asinine’ nature of applying experimental scientific methodology to forensic science. The article makes the point that the scientific method should not apply to some disciplines, as they are not ‘hard’ sciences, like physics and chemistry. This commentary represents an example of why critics of forensic science find these disciplines particularly frustrating, in that they attempt to justify their forensic practice on the basis that they are somehow ‘different’ or ‘immune’ to good scientific practice. But there is no logical reason why forensic science and the scientific method should be mutually exclusive….. Read more by clicking on the PDF below

Open PDF by clicking  a-response-to-a-critic-of-the-critics-2

Another article  by Mark Page can be found by clicking this link: http://www.fdiai.org/articles/Uniqueness-Fact_or_Fiction1.pdf

 

About these ads

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.

Balko on the Bennie Starks Case

By David Averill

Radley Balko of the Huffington Post published a nice comprehensive piece on his blog The Agitator concerning the defamation suit filed by two Chicago dentists against Michael Bowers. Balko opens his story by saying “Michael Bowers has been one of the heroes to shed light on the bite mark matching fraud. He has personally exposed a number of quacks, and contributed to the National Academy of Sciences report that found no scientific basis for the idea that bite marks on human skin can be definitively matched to one person, to the exclusion of everyone else.”

The two forensic dentists suing Bowers testified that the bitemark found on the shoulder of the victim to be a “definite match” in the wrongful conviction of Bennie Starks. DNA has since been found from semen and from the bitemark that did not implicate Bennie Starks. Starks has been released from prison after serving many years and is awaiting the decision from the prosecutor whether to be re-tried. What is most amazing is that despite the DNA found not to belong to Starks and the bitemark analysis being severely criticized by two excellent odontologists, the two expert odontologists for the prosecution stand by their opinion that Starks bit the women. The frivolity of the suit is further exposed when the damages include loss of income from dental patients to their private practices.

Review of Bitemark Evidence in the People of Illinois v. Bennie Starks

Balko finishes his piece exposing how the ABFO dental expert Dr. Lowell Levine who was interviewed in the CNN story also made a mistake in mis-identifying an individual via bite marks. But like the two Chicago dentists, Dr. Levine remains defiant that a mistake was made despite DNA implicating a man other than that identified by Levine to be the biter.

Renowned Expert Says Bitemark Analysis is not Junk Science but Cannot be Proven as a Science Either…

By David Averill

CNN recently aired a segment on the Anderson Cooper 360 show titled Bite Marks Led to Wrongful Conviction. In this piece the world’s foremost ABFO expert in forensic odontology, Dr. Lowell Levine expounds that bitemark analysis is not junk science and is viable and important, but as far as he knows it can’t be proven either. Interesting, since his statement then coincides with the definition of junk science as it is often defined as dogmatic and acknowledges no higher authority than itself for validity of its assertions. Sounds just like bitemark analysis. The courts have been duped for quite some time until numerous exonerations of wrongful convictions based on bitmearks have been piling up earning bitemark analysis the “poster child for bad forensic science”.

The full program can be viewed by clicking on CNN Anderson Cooper – Bitemarks led to wrongful conviction

Wrongly Convicted Database Record

http://forejustice.org/db/Starks–Bennie.html

Bennie Starks

Years Imprisoned:

20

Charge:

Sexual Assault (includes aggravated)

Sentence:

60 years

Year Convicted:

1986

Year Cleared:
2006

Location of Trial:
Illinois

Result:
Judicially Exonerated Released

Summary of Case:
Wrongly convicted of sexual assault and battery in 1986 based on the expert testimony of a crime lab analyst that a bite mark on the victim was made by Bennie Starks. Starks was sentenced to 60 years imprisonment for sexual assault and 5 years for battery. Starks conviction was vacated and he was released on $100,000 bail on October 4, 2006, after a DNA test excluded him as the source of crime scene evidence originating from the perpetrator.

Conviction Caused By:
Faulty bite mark testimony by a crime lab analyst.

Innocence Proved By:
DNA tests unavailable at the time of his conviction excluded him as the woman’s attacker.
Defendant Aided By:
Compensation Awarded:

Was Perpetrator Found?

Age When Imprisoned:
27

Age When Released:
47

Information Source 1:

Prison door swings open, By Dave Wischnowsky, Chicago Tribune, October 5, 2006

Information Location 1:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0610050059oct05,1,4411333.story?coll=chi-newslocal-hed

Guilty, said bite expert. Bogus, says DNA

As forensic scientists scramble to shore up a shaky field, new evidence casts doubt on an old conviction
By Maurice Possley and Steve Mills
Chicago Tribune reporters
July 10, 2008

MILWAUKEE — In a cubicle at Marquette University, a professor of dentistry and a former prosecutor are trying to use computer science to shore up a beleaguered forensic discipline.

But as the two men try to lay the groundwork to provide a statistical backbone to preserve bite-mark comparison’s place in the courtroom, they are being confronted with new evidence from a 1984 murder case that suggests their own use of this controversial analysis may have sent an innocent man to prison.

Dr. L. Thomas Johnson, a veteran forensic odontologist —or dental scientist—at Marquette, and a colleague, law professor Daniel Blinka, worked together on that criminal case, the first in Wisconsin to use bite-mark evidence. Blinka was the prosecutor who brought the charges, and Johnson testified that the bite marks on the victim were made by Robert Stinson.

Stinson, who has always insisted he was innocent, now has new hope to win his freedom: DNA tests exclude him as a source of saliva found on the victim, and a defense-commissioned study concludes the testimony from Johnson and another forensic dentist was inaccurate.

His case, as well as Johnson’s new research, raises a question that has been asked frequently in recent years: Can bite-mark comparison be trusted or is it a junk science?

Johnson and Blinka stand behind their work in the Stinson case and insist that bite-mark analysis is credible.

“What we want to show,” Johnson said during an interview at Marquette’s dental school, “is that it’s not a faulty science if it’s done properly, and there is a solid statistical basis behind it.”

Johnson said his and Blinka’s new research was prompted in part by a 2004 Tribune series, “Forensics Under the Microscope,” that showed that DNA tests have proved wrong many of the leading bite-mark experts, including the discipline’s founding fathers.

One of them, Dr. Raymond Rawson, helped send two men to Death Row in Arizona, and in both cases his work was later undermined, with one of the men set free. He also testified against Stinson.

The Tribune in its series also examined 154 cases involving bite-mark comparison, mostly murders and rapes, that reached appeals courts around the country and found that, in more than one-quarter of the cases, forensic dentists for the prosecution and defense gave diametrically opposed opinions.

Injecting science

Johnson’s research aims to provide scientific underpinning to the much-criticized discipline by establishing a database similar to the fingerprint database. Johnson believes that if a sufficient number of images of sets of teeth are put into a computer, all with consistent marking points, forensic dentists could estimate the frequency of dental patterns.

For the study, Johnson gathered dental molds from more than 400 Air National Guard members and scanned them into a computer. He then established six identifying characteristics.

“This is only a starting point,” Johnson said. “This isn’t the Rosetta stone that’s going to solve all the problems. We’re not ready for prime time yet. But what it’s done is answered the question of whether there is any science behind this.”

David Sweet, a professor of odontology at the University of British Columbia who has been working on a similar study, said Johnson’s research is much needed.

“Right now it’s a discipline based on an opinion,” Sweet said. “But in order to express that opinion in real terms, what we need to know is if anybody in the population has the same dental traits as the suspect.”

Other odontologists are skeptical, saying Johnson’s study sample is too small and does not represent the wider population. Any conclusions drawn from it, they say, would be misleading.

“This is the epitome of junk science cloaked as academic research,” said Dr. Michael Bowers, a California odontologist and a frequent critic of bite-mark comparisons. “I don’t think his claims are supported. The study just doesn’t pass muster.”

Over the past two years, as Johnson was doing his research, lawyers for Stinson were uncovering new evidence in the 1984 murder of 63-year-old Ione Cychosz, who was beaten to death and bitten eight times. Stinson was sentenced to life in prison for Cychosz’s murder.

The DNA test results — from saliva on Cychosz’s sweater — and the study from four other bite-mark experts have been turned over to Milwaukee County prosecutors for their review. Stinson’s attorney, Byron Lichstein of the Wisconsin Innocence Project, has asked prosecutors to vacate Stinson’s conviction. He is scheduled to meet with the prosecutors Thursday.

“At this point, we feel there is more review that needs to be done in this case before any decision is made,” said John Chisholm, Milwaukee County district attorney.

Johnson examined Cychosz’s body the day it was found nude and battered near her home. He worked with a police sketch artist to come up with a diagram of the attacker’s teeth and determined that the suspect had a missing upper front tooth.

A detective on the case, James Gauger, who has since retired, recalled in an interview that after Johnson said the perpetrator had a missing tooth, he and his partner visited Stinson’s home as part of their neighborhood canvass. Stinson lived in a home adjacent to the yard where the body was found.

“My partner told him a couple of jokes, and Stinson laughed,” Gauger said. When they saw a missing tooth, “we knew we had our man.”

After Johnson said he had linked Stinson’s teeth to the bite marks and Rawson concurred, Stinson was arrested.

“I was an easy target,” Stinson, now 43, said in a recent interview at the New Lisbon Correctional Institution. “I was young. I had no education, and they took advantage of that.”

At his three-day trial in December 1985, Stinson insisted he was innocent. The only evidence against him was the bite-mark testimony. Neither Johnson nor Rawson used any of the qualifying language that experts in the field say bite-mark analysts should use when testifying.

Johnson concluded the bite marks on Cychosz “had to have been made by teeth identical” to Stinson’s and there was “no margin for error in this.” Rawson called the evidence “overwhelming” and said “there was no question there was a match.”

Skeptical review

Three years ago, Stinson wrote to the Wisconsin Innocence Project at the University of Wisconsin Law School. After taking his case, Lichstein, working with the cooperation of Milwaukee County prosecutors, obtained the DNA tests and commissioned the review of Johnson and Rawson’s findings.

The group was headed by Gregory Golden, current chairman of a committee of the American Board of Forensic Odontology that oversees guidelines for the use of digital imaging in bite-mark analysis — a tool that has improved the ability of odontologists to compare bite marks.

The case also was examined by forensic experts from Texas, California and Illinois. In their report, the experts said that while some modern methods were not available in 1984, “it should be emphasized that Drs. Johnson and Rawson should have excluded Robert Lee Stinson even based on methods and standards available at the time … because there is little or no correlation of Robert Lee Stinson’s dentition to the bite marks.”

The report also criticized Johnson’s testimony that there was no doubt Stinson’s teeth left the marks. “That statement has no evidence-based, scientific, or statistical basis and drastically overstates the level of certainty attainable using bite mark analysis,” the report said.

Johnson, in an interview, defended his work in the case and said he has seen nothing to suggest Stinson is innocent. “I would have to say that I respectfully disagree with them,” he said.

Rawson declined to comment.

Blinka also rejected the report. “As I sit here now, do I have any reasonable doubt that Stinson is guilty?” he said. “No, I don’t.”

Stinson, meanwhile, said he has been told that he cannot qualify for parole unless he admits guilt.

“But I won’t do it. I’m innocent,” he said. “This is a huge mistake. I am not a murderer. I’m an innocent person that wants his freedom back.”

mpossley@tribune.com

smmills@tribune.com
Copyright © 2011, Chicago Tribune

ABFO Bitemark Expert and City of Warren Settle Case for Over $2.8M

Newspapers across the midwest are reporting on another unfortunate bitemark case that has resurfaced.  Jeffrey Moldowan was convicted and spent nearly 12 years in prison based on bitemark evidence prior to being exonerated.  The wrongfully convicted Moldowan brought suit against the city and the dentist who gave the faulty opinion. The case was settled yesterday for $2.8 million dollars. The city will pay a $250,000 deductible and insurance will pay the rest. Earlier in the month an agreement was made for the forensic odontologist to pay $200,000. The forensic dentist testified in court that the bitemarks found on the body were consistent with the teeth of the defendant and that the “chances are 2.1 billion to 1 that another individual can make those same marks”. The forensic dentist in this case has had a number of other cases where he mis-identified bitemarks leading to wrongful convictions. This case and others resulting in wrongful conditions are discussed in the textbook Bitemark Evidence: A Color Atlas and Text edited by Dr. Robert Dorion.

CALIFORNIA JUDGE REVIEWS OPPOSING BITEMARK OPINIONS AND DECLINES TO BE PERSUADED BY NEW RESEARCH PRESENTING DISTURBING FACTS OF PROSECUTOR’S CASE

By Dr. Michael Bowers

On September 13, 2011, Presiding Judge of the Santa Barbara Superior Court, Brian Hill, published his denial in an extraordinary post conviction claim of innocence by ex-UCSB soccer star and Ghanaian national, Eric Frimpong.
Frimpong was convicted in Hill’s court in 2008 of rape and sexual battery. Since then Judge Hill has denied a post-conviction motion for a new trial (2008) and the California Court of Appeal has refused to grant Frimpong relief in a statutory appeal 2 years after the conviction (2010).

Numerous aspects of the case against Frimpong are troubling. Significant offers of new alibi witnesses unavailable at the 08 trial, and lack of complete review of circumstances supporting reasonable doubt to the victim’s statements were presented in this latest attempt for relief. A major portion regards ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) and the activities and opinions of the Santa Barbara District Attorney’s two bitemark experts.

The DA’s expert dentist testifying during the trial claimed he could observe from a photo of the victim’s face that a bitemark on the cheek indicated the presence of a misaligned upper front tooth. This misalignment was also present in the upper dentition of Frimpong. In describing his methods, the technical basis was purely visual. The prescribed method of physical comparison of the photograph to the life-size outlines of Frimpong’s teeth did not “help” in his determination. The value of this one-tooth similarity played large in the mind of the judge and the jury because of the implied scientific relevance purported by this expert. The relationships of the other 11 upper and lower front teeth were only briefly mentioned. He also said that “worn teeth edges” could be seen in the bruising this expert “saw” in the aspect of the injury he determined to be from 4 lower teeth. Mr. Frimpong was 20 old at the time of trial and did not have the worn edges claimed by the DA’s dentist. Maybe if he was 60 years old.

Evidence of the victim’s DNA being present on Frimpong’s genitalia was also presented by the DA. The defense countered the DA’s assertion that this was the ultimate proof of Frimpong’s guilt by stating this low copy number DNA sample was capable of having been transferred by hand from the victim to Frimpong. This scenario was considered as possible by the DA’s DNA expert from the California Department of Justice DNA Lab. Frimpong had described he had been fondled by the victim at a small party a few hours before the police were called to a different location to investigate a sexual assault. It is important to point out that the copious male DNA available from the victim and victim’s underwear was determined to be from her boyfriend.
The State presented dozens of witnesses at trial.

The defense presented one witness. This disparity was one major aspect of the IAC claim presented in the most recent appeal.

No defense bitemark expert was available at trial. The bitemark evidence, however, was thoroughly reviewed, after Frimpong was convicted, at a motion for a new trial hearing granted by Judge Hill. This proceeding, held over numerous days, and was again before Judge Hill. The DA and the defense each retained new bitemark dentists.

The judge began the hearing with a two hour monologue directed at defense counsel. Judge Hill laid out on the record his opinion that defense counsel had presented a weak and confusing case before the judge and jury. No consistent theory of defense was a major defense flaw. The details of the judge’s opinions were ultimately adopted in the most recent appeal petition. Oddly, Judge Hill considered these arguments in the petition to be non-meritorious on the issue of IAC. This turn of events is confusing at best. This jurist made his own remarks about IAC at the post conviction hearing and later, when he ruled on the same issues in this latest claim of Frimpong’s innocence, considered the issues to be harmless error.

The DA and defense dentists had ample time to present their opposing interpretations of the bitemark on the victim’s face. There was no point of agreement on the forensic value of the pattern. The DA’s expert said it was “moderate to high” value. The two disagreed on where the upper and lower teeth were present in the injury pattern. The defense said the pattern detail was ambiguous. A digital reversal of the prosecution’s upper and lower orientation and comparison of teeth of the victim’s boyfriend to the facial injury, immediately showed alignment of dental landmarks in the bruising. In addition, the defense indicated the DA’s observation of “mal-aligned upper teeth” was actually a misdiagnosis due to the metric values (using published Adobe Photoshop digital methods) of the bruising indicating the teeth were from the lower jaw (where biting edges are one-half the size of upper teeth). The DA post conviction expert emphatically stated that the use of “metrics” in bitemark comparison was not a mandatory method in the field and that “shape analysis” was compelling, valid and controlling. This was clearly a recitation and support of the trial bitemark expert’s identical opinion. In one more bit of confusion, the DA’s two Frimpong dentists (the one at the trial and the different one at the later hearing) had just testified to the opposite in another CA case, (State v. William Richards). This latest Richards proceedings was a post conviction exoneration hearing wherein both these dentists had testified that the use of Photoshop and its high magnification digital methods were the “new age of bitemarks” and had, in part, convinced them to recant their 1999 Richards testimony. Both had stated at the original Richards trial, that a hand injury on the murdered wife of Richards’ was a definite bitemark.

As mentioned above, Judge Hill denied the Frimpong motion for a new trial, saying, in part, that the Defense dentist was “not credible.” He had no comment about the coup de grace performed by the DA’s bitemark expert’s presentation where the photograph of the injury was again shown to the judge. Frimpong’s upper teeth were digitally placed over the injury pattern in his “proper orientation.” The expert stated the fit between the two was significant proof of biter identity. Expounding himself as the digital examiner who performed these described methods, he confidently testified that all he had to do was digitally expand the bitemark image 128% to obtain this relationship.

Coincidentally, the dilemma of skin distortion and the accompanying distortion of tooth patterns was addressed in 2010 by a well respected University of Buffalo research team. It was published in the Journal of Forensic Sciences, and titled “Inquiry into the Scientific Basis for Bitemark Profiling and Arbitrary Distortion Compensation.” They gave the bitemark reading profession its first glimpse into relevant biological science and forensic dentists’ 40 years of judicial opinions on bitemark matching. This precedent setting and seminal piece of literature describes their “back to basics” approach into the physiological characteristics of cadaveric human skin before and during biting activity. Their findings clearly established the judicial use of bitemark opinions has broadly surpassed its scientific underpinnings. Two conclusions, which appear in the paper’s title, suggests that any bitemark profiling examiner using methods to match patterns or counteract the stretching and shrinkage of skin during the dynamics of movement, pressure and physical stress should reconsider scientific facts. Profiling (i.e. comparing) and enlarging or shrinking injury patterns to fit, as in the arbitrarily “adjustment” presented in Frimpong was not supported scientifically.

In 2009, at a national forensic meeting, there was a presentation of the prosecutorial bitemark case and served as a public pronouncement for the DA’s bitemark experts. At the culmination of this tour-de-force, at the Q&A end of this show, he was pressed by an attendee to discuss what scientific basis supported his rendition of the bitemark photo. Words from the dentist who testified on his match-improving methods seemed to detach himself from his earlier testimony, as he replied, “..

“…this was not my idea…”…”…the district attorney took it upon herself to have that done to see whether or not she could enter that into evidence to thereby bolster her case…” “…had I been operating by myself out there in the real world there is absolutely no way I would have done that…”

Fast forward to September 13, 2011.
Judge Hill writes he was not “persuaded” by the analysis and critiques presented by the appellate submission in State v Eric Frimpong.
Eric Frimpong is scheduled to be released from prison in 18 months. Upon his release, he mostly likely will be deported to Ghana unless criminal justice proceedings intervene.

Fabricated Bitemark and Phony Surveillance Video Land Leigh Stubbs 44 Years in Mississippi Prison

By David Averill and Mike Bowers

Leigh Stubbs, Department of Corrections Photo

Leigh Stubbs has now served 10 years of a 44 year sentence based largely on the faulty testimony from discredited forensic odontologist Dr. Michael West. West testified in this trial as a multi-disciplinary expert and was allowed to give his opinion in bitemark analysis, toolmark comparison, video enhancement, crime scene reconstruction, gynecological injuries and psychological criminal motive. Of course he reminds the jury every chance he can get that he is qualified in all of these areas, and that he has lectured to the FBI, Scotland Yard and throughout China.

Stubbs is now being represented by the Innocence Project who are now petitioning for a new trial. This is yet another case that has wreaked havoc with the judicial system by offering West’s bogus expert opinion where he is once again the only one able to see the evidence that he describes. The prosecutor still used West’s testimony in this case despite West having been thoroughly discredited by every major forensic organization in the world. Not to mention the numerous cases that are adding up where innocent men have been wrongfully convicted of crimes that they did not commit due to his faulty testimony.

Bitemark Evidence
Dr. West narrates his first video as he records his “body scan” to document the examination. The video shown below is a clip taken from the right hip where West makes no mention of recognizing a bitemark. In court when asked why there was no mention of the bitemark, he testifies that ”I missed it on the first day but realized that there was a bite after looking at some polaroid photographs that I had taken.”

In court, West describes the alleged bitemark on the hip as “not a prototypical bite mark in appearance….it has fused components from the swelling” yet he is able to give it his strongest opinion, “100 percent sure that it is a bitemark.” West cautions the jury that “I must admit to a novice, this may not appear to be a bitemark by any means.” In other words, West can only see it as a bitemark.

In his second video taken 5 days later on March 15th the area that West says “that the bitemark is no longer visible due to the nurses taking such good care of the victim and using lotion on her skin.” West then proceeds to tamper with the evidence by actually imbedding a stone cast of Leigh Stubbs teeth into the comatose victims hip resulting in a fabricated bitemark on the skin of the victim.

West comes to the conclusion that the bitemark that he sees on the hip is from the teeth of Leigh Stubbs since “the corner of tooth #7 has a little sharp area, very minute… on the skin notice this red area, we have petechia….this is the area caused by the little notch on her tooth #7…..that dot, that dot and that dot represent three teeth.” “Its a pretty good relationship there, it falls short of what we need to make 100 percent.” “There is a high degree of correlation between those teeth and this injury on this girl’s leg”. Dr. West submitted a West bitemark Report that contained two paragraphs.

Enhancement and Interpretation of Surveillance Video
The surveillance video was recorded at the motel the three girls rented for the night. The video was brought to Dr. Wests attention by the Detective in the case who thought he could see a body being removed from a toolbox in the bed of the pickup truck. Dr. West agreed that he could also see the body and said he could enhance the video to make it more visible. The police department had sent the video to the FBI for analysis and enhancement but were told that nothing could be done with the video. Dr. West then saves the day by “enhancing” the video and despite admitting that “we have a very poor imaging system…that is not designed to take high definition pictures….but probably the most important problem we have with the video is the tape had been recorded over and over and over….its about worn out.” No problem for Dr. West though, “what I see isn’t what everybody else sees, there are interpretations.” Don’t worry about your eyes if you cannot see anything on this enhanced video, remember that West is usually the only one to see what he is talking about.

West Interpretation of Video
“All the action we’re interested in now takes place between this truck and that light…as fate would have it this is where the tape had a wrinkle or started messing up…what I’m saying happens next in this clip. You’ve got to imagine her scooping her up and holding that head, with the hair to the side, closing the lid, turning around, stepping off the truck and going into the room.”
Amazing action since the timeline is 16 seconds for Leigh Stubbs to leave the motel door, get to the truck, lift the lid of a toolbox and pull a 120 pound limp unconcious person out from within a toolbox in 1-2 seconds and then haul her out of the back of the pickup stepping down and into the motel room, all within 16 seconds. It only gets more bizarre as Dr. West now recreates the crime scene. West cannot explain how come when the crime lab looked for blood, hair and fiber inside the toolbox they found none that belonged to the victim. They also found no blood on the carpet or in the bathtub of the motel room. West tried to explain that the toolbox could be washed out with water and chlorine. Problem is that they found other hair and fiber inside the box that did not belong to the victim. So much for his crime scene re-creation abilities.

Toolmark Testimony
Dr. West looked at the wound on the head of the victim and thought it looked like the latch that was on the toolbox. And when he looked at the hip where he found the bitemark he also found a toolmark in the shape of a latch from the toolbox. He measured the distance from the head wound and the hip wound and found 37 inches. You guessed it, the distance from the latches on the tool box is 37 inches. A forensic pathologist testified that the wound to the head could not have been made by closing of the lid on her head. The wound was consistent with a blunt object. Read more of the trial testimony if you are interested. I will include pdf copies of the trial at the end of this post.

Conclusion
Unfortunately the police did not do a thorough investigation, so the answers to many questions will never be known. What is known is that Leigh Stubbs dentition cannot be associated with what Dr. West describes as a bitemark on the hip of the victim.

ABFO Board of Director Urges Judicial Restraint in Admitting Bitemark Evidence

In a 2010 article published in the Southwest Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol. 7 (1) titled BITE THIS! THE ROLE OF BITE MARK ANALYSES IN WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS, Dr. Roger Metcalf et al chronicle the case history of wrongful convictions based on bitemark evidence. The authors conclude the article with this statement:

“Perhaps it is time for a judge somewhere to finally be the first to say “this bite mark analysis is just not scientific and it’s not reliable, and I’m not letting it come in” thereby greatly diminishing the possibility of wrongful convictions based on the admission of what appears to be a flawed forensic science”.

The full text of the article can be found at: http://utsa.edu/swjcj/archives/7.1/Metcalf%20et%20al..pdf

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 27 other followers