STORY: "The mystery continues: Supreme Court declines to take 'bite mark' murder case," by Justice Reporter Bart Janson, published by USA Today, on July 2, 2024.
QUOTE OF THE DAY: "What should a court do when faced with a 40-year-old conviction resting on science that has now been wholly discredited?" Sotomayor wrote. "This petition raises difficult questions about the adequacy of current postconviction remedies to correct a conviction secured by what we now know was faulty science. One in four people exonerated since 1989 were wrongfully convicted based on false or misleading forensic evidence introduced at their trials."
————————————————————————
PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "A forensic odontologist, Richard Souviron, flew in to the trial fresh from testifying live on national television against serial killer Ted Bundy. Souviron said the mark matched McCrory’s teeth and was inflicted at the time of the murder. But Souviron, fully recanted his testimony in 2019 and said it wasn’t even a bite, much less one connected to McCrory. Two expert forensic dentists corroborated that testimony and debunked “bite mark identification.” One of the experts, Adam Freeman, called it “junk science.” “In the decades since Charles McCrory’s conviction, repeated scientific studies, multiple governmental reports, and an increasing number of wrongful convictions have revealed that bite mark analysis has no scientific foundation,” McCrory’s lawyers wrote in their request to the Supreme Court. “It has been completely debunked – indeed, it has been called the ‘most egregious’ type of discredited evidence."
-------------------------------------------------------
GIST: "The mystery continues.
Charles McCrory has been in prison for nearly 40 years for killing his wife, and the only evidence that linked him to the crime was a "bite mark" on her right shoulder.
But was it really a bite mark? And was it actually from McCrory?
The Supreme Court refused Tuesday to review this genuine who-done-it in which McCrory contends he wrongly convicted and sentenced to life in prison.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor disagreed with the decision and lamented the hundreds of thousands of innocent people may be imprisoned based on evidence that lacks scientific justification.
"What should a court do when faced with a 40-year-old conviction resting on science that has now been wholly discredited?" Sotomayor wrote. "This petition raises difficult questions about the adequacy of current postconviction remedies to correct a conviction secured by what we now know was faulty science. One in four people exonerated since 1989 were wrongfully convicted based on false or misleading forensic evidence introduced at their trials."
The case has generated international interest after being covered by CBS News and international newspapers. The advocacy group Innocence Project has fought for McCrory's release.
McCrory contends the only evidence connecting him to the 1985 murder of his wife, Julie Bonds, was a purported bite mark inflicted at the time of the killing.
Bonds's body was found in her home in Andalusia, Alabama, dead from four chop wounds to the back of her head and 11 puncture wounds to her chest, according to Joshua Sapala, a forensic pathologist who performed the autopsy. Hair found clutched in her left hand wasn't McCrory's.
McCrory, a technology worker and volunteer emergency medical technician, heard the emergency call at work and joined first responders to find Bonds beaten to death. Witnesses later testified he was acting strangely.
A forensic odontologist, Richard Souviron, flew in to the trial fresh from testifying live on national television against serial killer Ted Bundy. Souviron said the mark matched McCrory’s teeth and was inflicted at the time of the murder.
But Souviron, fully recanted his testimony in 2019 and said it wasn’t even a bite, much less one connected to McCrory. Two expert forensic dentists corroborated that testimony and debunked “bite mark identification.” One of the experts, Adam Freeman, called it “junk science.”
“In the decades since Charles McCrory’s conviction, repeated scientific studies, multiple governmental reports, and an increasing number of wrongful convictions have revealed that bite mark analysis has no scientific foundation,” McCrory’s lawyers wrote in their request to the Supreme Court. “It has been completely debunked – indeed, it has been called the ‘most egregious’ type of discredited evidence.
But the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals denied McCrory’s appeal. The court ruled that jurors could decide for themselves what was a bite mark and that McCrory had made it.
One of the five judges on the appeals court when it upheld the conviction had earlier represented the state as an assistant attorney general during McCrory’s appeal. When the appeals court reheard the case, it issued the same opinion with the additional notation that the judge had recused herself.
State lawyers said McCrory was having an affair, was in the midst of a divorce and had acted strangely at the time of the murder. When he appealed citing new evidence discrediting the identification of the purported bite mark, the state appeals court found “the evidence against (McCrory) was sufficient for a rational finder of fact to reasonably exclude every hypothesis except that of guilt.”
The entire story can be read at:
A forensic odontologist, Richard Souviron, flew in to the trial fresh from testifying live on national television against serial killer Ted Bundy. Souviron said the mark matched McCrory’s teeth and was inflicted at the time of the murder.
But Souviron, fully recanted his testimony in 2019 and said it wasn’t even a bite, much less one connected to McCrory. Two expert forensic dentists corroborated that testimony and debunked “bite mark identification.” One of the experts, Adam Freeman, called it “junk science.”
“In the decades since Charles McCrory’s conviction, repeated scientific studies, multiple governmental reports, and an increasing number of wrongful convictions have revealed that bite mark analysis has no scientific foundation,” McCrory’s lawyers wrote in their request to the Supreme Court. “It has been completely debunked – indeed, it has been called the ‘most egregious’ type of discredited evidence."
The entire story can be read at:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2024/07/02/supreme-court-murder-bite-mark/74276180007/
———————————————————————————————
Dr. Mike Bowers wades in on CSIDDS: Forensics and Law in Focus, in a post referring to Charles MxCrory, headed: "Forensics: How forensic dentists ruin innocent lives," published on July 9, 2024: ( Dr. Mike Bowers is a retired dentist in Ventura, CA. Dr. Bowers is a clinical associate professor at the University of Southern California. In addition, he is a licensed attorney and has assisted the Innocence Project Network in cases where forensic science has erroneously convicted innocent defendants throughout the US. His latest book is “Forensic Testimony: Science, Law and Expert Evidence” and “Forensic Dental Evd” available at Amazon.com.)
GIST: "I have co-existed with these dentists for decades. Some are sincere and thoughtful. Others are raging egotists. None are trained as a “scientist .” The outrageous cases like McCrory’s (see the link below) over the last 2 decades have led many of the 100 members of the American Board of Dorensic Odontology to refuse to continue participating in bitemark cases. The younger members of the ABFO, however, have been forced to train from the last few true bitemark believers who gather for their for-profit “fellowships” at U of Texas San Antonio. These new dentists are forced to certify with the ABFO due to the mandates of the US Department of Justice and National Asso of Medical Examiners. This is beyond incredible. No non ABFO dentist is allowed to associate with US Medical Examiners/Coroners who want to /apply/remain NAME certified. The USDOJ now refuses to allow me to continue my contract with the NIJ funded NAMUS missing and unidentified system because I resigned from the ABFO in 2012. The reasons I quit are well described in this latest bitemark conviction litigation that petitioned the US Supreme Court for review. The motion to hear was denied. A dissenting brief of Justice Sotomayor, however, struck to the heart of the ABFO’s forensic misdeeds in her statement that “bitemark forensics is a faulty science.” Read this article from the Guardian about a superstar bitemarker whose history of faulty expertise has led to MULTIPLE false convictions with later exonerations. He also led a coven of his colleagues’ attempt to get me thrown out of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences for not folllowing their “science and “testifying for profit.” Many of these “experts” made $50,000 or more per case.
https://csidds.com/2024/07/09/forensics-how-forensic-dentists-ruin-innocent-lives/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STORY: "The mystery continues: Supreme Court declines to take 'bite mark' murder case," by Reporter Bart Janson, published by USA Today, on July 2, 2024.
QUOTE OF THE DAY: "What should a court do when faced with a 40-year-old conviction resting on science that has now been wholly discredited?" Sotomayor wrote. "This petition raises difficult questions about the adequacy of current postconviction remedies to correct a conviction secured by what we now know was faulty science. One in four people exonerated since 1989 were wrongfully convicted based on false or misleading forensic evidence introduced at their trials."
————————————————————————
PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "A forensic odontologist, Richard Souviron, flew in to the trial fresh from testifying live on national television against serial killer Ted Bundy. Souviron said the mark matched McCrory’s teeth and was inflicted at the time of the murder. But Souviron, fully recanted his testimony in 2019 and said it wasn’t even a bite, much less one connected to McCrory. Two expert forensic dentists corroborated that testimony and debunked “bite mark identification.” One of the experts, Adam Freeman, called it “junk science.” “In the decades since Charles McCrory’s conviction, repeated scientific studies, multiple governmental reports, and an increasing number of wrongful convictions have revealed that bite mark analysis has no scientific foundation,” McCrory’s lawyers wrote in their request to the Supreme Court. “It has been completely debunked – indeed, it has been called the ‘most egregious’ type of discredited evidence."
-------------------------------------------------------
GIST: "The mystery continues.
Charles McCrory has been in prison for nearly 40 years for killing his wife, and the only evidence that linked him to the crime was a "bite mark" on her right shoulder.
But was it really a bite mark? And was it actually from McCrory?
The Supreme Court refused Tuesday to review this genuine who-done-it in which McCrory contends he wrongly convicted and sentenced to life in prison.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor disagreed with the decision and lamented the hundreds of thousands of innocent people may be imprisoned based on evidence that lacks scientific justification.
"What should a court do when faced with a 40-year-old conviction resting on science that has now been wholly discredited?" Sotomayor wrote. "This petition raises difficult questions about the adequacy of current postconviction remedies to correct a conviction secured by what we now know was faulty science. One in four people exonerated since 1989 were wrongfully convicted based on false or misleading forensic evidence introduced at their trials."
The case has generated international interest after being covered by CBS News and international newspapers. The advocacy group Innocence Project has fought for McCrory's release.
McCrory contends the only evidence connecting him to the 1985 murder of his wife, Julie Bonds, was a purported bite mark inflicted at the time of the killing.
Bonds's body was found in her home in Andalusia, Alabama, dead from four chop wounds to the back of her head and 11 puncture wounds to her chest, according to Joshua Sapala, a forensic pathologist who performed the autopsy. Hair found clutched in her left hand wasn't McCrory's.
McCrory, a technology worker and volunteer emergency medical technician, heard the emergency call at work and joined first responders to find Bonds beaten to death. Witnesses later testified he was acting strangely.
A forensic odontologist, Richard Souviron, flew in to the trial fresh from testifying live on national television against serial killer Ted Bundy. Souviron said the mark matched McCrory’s teeth and was inflicted at the time of the murder.
But Souviron, fully recanted his testimony in 2019 and said it wasn’t even a bite, much less one connected to McCrory. Two expert forensic dentists corroborated that testimony and debunked “bite mark identification.” One of the experts, Adam Freeman, called it “junk science.”
“In the decades since Charles McCrory’s conviction, repeated scientific studies, multiple governmental reports, and an increasing number of wrongful convictions have revealed that bite mark analysis has no scientific foundation,” McCrory’s lawyers wrote in their request to the Supreme Court. “It has been completely debunked – indeed, it has been called the ‘most egregious’ type of discredited evidence.
But the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals denied McCrory’s appeal. The court ruled that jurors could decide for themselves what was a bite mark and that McCrory had made it.
One of the five judges on the appeals court when it upheld the conviction had earlier represented the state as an assistant attorney general during McCrory’s appeal. When the appeals court reheard the case, it issued the same opinion with the additional notation that the judge had recused herself.
State lawyers said McCrory was having an affair, was in the midst of a divorce and had acted strangely at the time of the murder. When he appealed citing new evidence discrediting the identification of the purported bite mark, the state appeals court found “the evidence against (McCrory) was sufficient for a rational finder of fact to reasonably exclude every hypothesis except that of guilt.”
The entire story can be read at:
A forensic odontologist, Richard Souviron, flew in to the trial fresh from testifying live on national television against serial killer Ted Bundy. Souviron said the mark matched McCrory’s teeth and was inflicted at the time of the murder.
But Souviron, fully recanted his testimony in 2019 and said it wasn’t even a bite, much less one connected to McCrory. Two expert forensic dentists corroborated that testimony and debunked “bite mark identification.” One of the experts, Adam Freeman, called it “junk science.”
“In the decades since Charles McCrory’s conviction, repeated scientific studies, multiple governmental reports, and an increasing number of wrongful convictions have revealed that bite mark analysis has no scientific foundation,” McCrory’s lawyers wrote in their request to the Supreme Court. “It has been completely debunked – indeed, it has been called the ‘most egregious’ type of discredited evidence."
The entire story can be read at:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2024/07/02/supreme-court-murder-bite-mark/74276180007/
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue/resource. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. 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/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog.
SEE BREAKDOWN OF SOME OF THE ON-GOING INTERNATIONAL CASES (OUTSIDE OF THE CONTINENTAL USA) THAT I AM FOLLOWING ON THIS BLOG, AT THE LINK BELOW: HL:
https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/120008354894645705/4704913685758792985
———————————————————————————————
FINAL WORD: (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases): "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."
Lawyer Radha Natarajan:
Executive Director: New England Innocence Project;
—————————————————————————————————
FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions. They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they've exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true!
Christina Swarns: Executive Director: The Innocence Project;
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
