Board Of Dental Examiners Of Alabama

Image

In the early hours of November 3, 1984, a horrifying discovery was made near a Milwaukee home—a lifeless body lying in a lot. The victim, 63-year-old Ione Cychosz, had been brutally beaten and possibly raped. The investigation faced numerous challenges right from the start—no eyewitnesses, no motive, and no fingerprints or DNA evidence to identify the killer. But there was one clue left behind that would lead the police down a troubling path—the bite marks on the victim’s body.

Dr. L. Thomas Johnson, a dental specialist and professor, examined the bite marks, and his findings gave the detectives hope. According to Dr. Johnson, the assailant would have an abnormality in one of his upper teeth. Armed with this information, the police began their search, knocking on doors in the neighborhood. Three days after the murder, they arrived at the home of Robert Lee Stinson, a quiet 20-year-old with a minor criminal record. Stinson’s missing upper right front tooth caught their attention. Convinced they had found their suspect, the police devised a plan to confirm their suspicions.

At a secret hearing, a dental examination was conducted. Dr. Johnson, the same dentist who had identified the bite marks, examined Stinson’s teeth. In just 20 seconds, he declared that Stinson’s teeth matched the sketch of the suspect’s teeth based on the bite marks. This was enough for the court to order a full dental examination. However, a crucial detail was overlooked—the sketch indicated that the suspect would be missing a lateral incisor, while Stinson was missing a central incisor. Despite this discrepancy, the dentist’s testimony became a turning point in Stinson’s case.

Bite mark analysis is considered one of the pattern matching disciplines in forensic science, alongside fingerprints, shoe prints, and handwriting. These fields developed in response to crime scenes, lacking the foundation of scientific research and scrutiny seen in traditional scientific disciplines. Bite mark analysis relies on the subjective judgment of examiners, without clear standards or guidelines for accuracy. This subjectivity raises questions about the reliability of such evidence in criminal cases.

At the time of Stinson’s trial, the accuracy of bite mark analysis was largely unknown. The dentist who examined Stinson’s teeth, Dr. Johnson, was a respected forensic odontologist who had played a crucial role in identifying victims of disasters and serial killers. However, the field of bite mark analysis had never been rigorously tested or scientifically validated. Its acceptance in courtrooms was based on legal precedent rather than scientific evidence.

Years after Stinson’s conviction, doubts began to emerge about the validity of bite mark analysis as a forensic tool. Experts and researchers questioned its reliability and pointed out the lack of scientific support for its claims. The subjectivity of the analysis, the absence of clear standards, and the potential for bias all cast doubt on its accuracy. These concerns have led to calls for reforms in the criminal justice system and a reassessment of the use of bite mark analysis in courtrooms.

The case of Robert Lee Stinson serves as a cautionary tale, highlighting the dangers of relying on flawed forensic practices. The judicial system depends on precedent, seeking predictability and consistency, while science thrives on progress and adaptation. It is essential to embrace the evolving nature of scientific research and apply critical thinking to forensic disciplines. As society strives for justice, we must acknowledge the limitations of certain forensic practices and work towards a more reliable and evidence-based approach.

Make You Smile is committed to promoting accurate information and fostering a better understanding of the criminal justice system. By critically examining the flaws within forensic disciplines, we can work towards a fairer and more just society. Let’s learn from past mistakes and ensure that science plays a reliable role in the pursuit of truth and justice.