STORY: "Is bite-mark evidence accurate? Marks left by teeth make impressions that are't definitive, experts say, but still are used in court," by reporter Kathleen Hopkins, published on February 10, 2014 by My Central Jersey.
GIST: "When Gerard Richardson stood trial in Somerset County in 1995 for the brutal murder of a 19-year-old Elizabeth woman left for dead in a ditch in Bernards, a forensic dentist testified there was no question it was Richardson who left a bite mark on the woman’s body. The testimony of Dr. Ira Titunik, a forensic odontologist, is largely what led to the conviction of Richardson for the February 1994 murder of Monica Reyes and a 30-year prison sentence handed down to him. But last year, analysis of DNA extracted from saliva left in the bite mark proved it wasn’t Richardson at all who had bitten the victim, but someone else who has never been identified. Richardson, 49, walked out of a courtroom a free man in December after being wrongfully imprisoned for 19 years. He is the only defendant in New Jersey wrongfully convicted on bite-mark evidence to be exonerated. His exoneration and that of 24 other people across the country who were mistakenly linked to crimes through analysis of bite marks has some in criminal justice circles questioning whether that type of evidence has any place in a courtroom."
The entire story can be found at:
GIST: "When Gerard Richardson stood trial in Somerset County in 1995 for the brutal murder of a 19-year-old Elizabeth woman left for dead in a ditch in Bernards, a forensic dentist testified there was no question it was Richardson who left a bite mark on the woman’s body. The testimony of Dr. Ira Titunik, a forensic odontologist, is largely what led to the conviction of Richardson for the February 1994 murder of Monica Reyes and a 30-year prison sentence handed down to him. But last year, analysis of DNA extracted from saliva left in the bite mark proved it wasn’t Richardson at all who had bitten the victim, but someone else who has never been identified. Richardson, 49, walked out of a courtroom a free man in December after being wrongfully imprisoned for 19 years. He is the only defendant in New Jersey wrongfully convicted on bite-mark evidence to be exonerated. His exoneration and that of 24 other people across the country who were mistakenly linked to crimes through analysis of bite marks has some in criminal justice circles questioning whether that type of evidence has any place in a courtroom."
The entire story can be found at:
PUBLISHER'S NOTE:
Dear Reader. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog. We are following this case.
I have added a search box for content in this blog which now encompasses several thousand posts. The search box is located near the bottom of the screen just above the list of links. I am confident that this powerful search tool provided by "Blogger" will help our readers and myself get more out of the site.
The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at:
http://www.thestar.com/topic/
Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at:
http://smithforensic.blogspot.ca/2013/12/the-charles-smith-award-presented-to_28.html
I look forward to hearing from readers at:
hlevy15@gmail.com.
