—————————————————
PASSAGE TWO OF THE DAY: "Duncan’s case is particularly troubling. Video evidence shows West forcibly creating bite marks on the child’s deceased body in an attempt to match them to Duncan’s dental impressions. The footage, which was hidden from the jury and the expert witness, appears to show fabricated evidence meant to falsely implicate Duncan. Because the jury was never shown how the bite marks were created, they were misled into believing Duncan had inflicted them. Hayne also told the jury that Duncan had anally raped and drowned the child in the bathtub. No physical evidence supported either claim. Duncan has continued to maintain his innocence, but his fate has remained tied to the discredited testimony and analysis of Hayne and West."
——————————————————————
PASSAGE THREE OF THE DAY: "Grisham has emphasized the irreparable harm caused by what he calls “chicanery posing as science,” noting its devastating effects on the wrongfully accused and their families. He writes that lives are destroyed when innocent people are punished for crimes they didn’t commit. To date, Grisham reports that 39 individuals have been wrongfully convicted or indicted due to Hayne’s and West’s bite mark analysis. Four scientific reports have found the theory fundamentally flawed."
—————————————————————————————
PARAGRAPH FOUR OF THE DAY: "In October 2022, the National Institute of Standards and Technology concluded that bite mark analysis “lacks a sufficient scientific foundation.” The agency cited concerns over the method’s reliability and validity. Grisham argues that “every case touched by Hayne and West and every single conviction connected to them lacks integrity.” The possibility of executing someone based on discredited science, he says, is “anathema to any sense of fundamental fairness.” He urges reform in the criminal justice system, insisting that it must be held to the “highest possible standards of justice and fairness.” Grisham calls for the release of Duncan, an innocent man who has spent 27 years on death row following his wrongful conviction in the 1993 murder of Haley Oliveaux, based on debunked bite mark evidence."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
POST: "Call for Justice Reform as Grisham Calls Out Flawed Bite Mark Evidence," by Reporters Samantha Padilla and Julianna Rodriguez, published by The Davis Vanguard, on June 26, 2025. (Hi! My name is Samantha Padilla, and I'm a third-year Political Science major with a minor in Digital Humanities and Professional Writing. I'm from the San Fernando Valley, and I'm deeply passionate about highlighting injustices that impact our communities. I believe it's crucial to report on these injustices, as bringing them to light is a vital step toward creating meaningful change);
ANGOLA, Louisiana — Convicted for the 1993 death of 2-year-old Haley Oliveaux, Jimmie “Chris” Duncan remains on death row, according to a report by NOLA News in New Orleans. On April 25 of this year, 27 years after his conviction, Judge Alvin Sharp of the 4th Judicial District in Ouachita Parish set aside Duncan’s murder conviction, declaring him innocent.
Despite the ruling, Duncan remains imprisoned on death row.
Duncan’s conviction was largely based on bite mark analysis, a forensic theory suggesting that a perpetrator can be identified by matching their teeth to bite marks found on a victim. The method gained national attention during the Ted Bundy trial, after a jury heard that a bite mark on a victim matched Bundy’s dental impression.
Though the theory surged in popularity, it has since been discredited, and many people—Duncan among them—were wrongfully convicted because of it.
Author John Grisham has spoken out against pathologist Steven Hayne and forensic odontologist Michael West, calling their use of bite mark analysis “junk science” and arguing that it has placed innocent people on death row for crimes they did not commit.
In 1993, Duncan was convicted of murder based on the testimony and bite mark analysis conducted by Hayne and West.
Grisham has written that Hayne’s approach to forensic science has resulted in “shocking miscarriages of justice.” He notes that at least seven people have been exonerated since 2001 as a result of new evidence exposing flaws in West’s bite mark methodology.
Duncan’s case is particularly troubling.
Video evidence shows West forcibly creating bite marks on the child’s deceased body in an attempt to match them to Duncan’s dental impressions. The footage, which was hidden from the jury and the expert witness, appears to show fabricated evidence meant to falsely implicate Duncan.
Because the jury was never shown how the bite marks were created, they were misled into believing Duncan had inflicted them.
Hayne also told the jury that Duncan had anally raped and drowned the child in the bathtub. No physical evidence supported either claim.
Duncan has continued to maintain his innocence, but his fate has remained tied to the discredited testimony and analysis of Hayne and West.
Grisham has emphasized the irreparable harm caused by what he calls “chicanery posing as science,” noting its devastating effects on the wrongfully accused and their families. He writes that lives are destroyed when innocent people are punished for crimes they didn’t commit.
To date, Grisham reports that 39 individuals have been wrongfully convicted or indicted due to Hayne’s and West’s bite mark analysis. Four scientific reports have found the theory fundamentally flawed.
In October 2022, the National Institute of Standards and Technology concluded that bite mark analysis “lacks a sufficient scientific foundation.” The agency cited concerns over the method’s reliability and validity.
Grisham argues that “every case touched by Hayne and West and every single conviction connected to them lacks integrity.” The possibility of executing someone based on discredited science, he says, is “anathema to any sense of fundamental fairness.”
He urges reform in the criminal justice system, insisting that it must be held to the “highest possible standards of justice and fairness.”
Grisham calls for the release of Duncan, an innocent man who has spent 27 years on death row following his wrongful conviction in the 1993 murder of Haley Oliveaux, based on debunked bite mark evidence."
The entire story can be read at:
https://davisvanguard.org/2025/06/bite-mark-analysis-controversy/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;
