Evidence

[Userid]

It doesn't have to, but then again, it can't be completely dismissed either. After all, it's smack dab in the middle of this injury.

Thank you for the Leveritt article, it was interesting. I do not trust Leveritt and have found inaccuracies that I feel are purposeful in her writings on the case, therefore I find nothing she says as reliable -- but it's always nice to read opposing views. I found this article on the subjectivity of bite mark evidence that illustrates my stance well.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/02/10/bite-mark-evidence-sometimes-wrong/5372523/

Critics say a key drawback of bite-mark analysis is its subjectivity, which lends itself to bias.

"People tend to see what they believe they will see," Fabricant said. "The dentists feel a great deal of pressure to associate the police's or the prosecutor's suspect with the bite mark."

PROBLEMS WITH BITE MARKS

• Human skin is not a reliable medium on which to record bite marks because skin is subject to tension, distortion, swelling and elasticity.

• There have been no research studies on live humans to prove that the discipline of bite-mark analysis is scientifically reliable.

• Research on cadavers at the University of Buffalo suggests the same teeth do not make the same bite marks each time.

• Bite marks can be skewed by the movement that goes along with violent acts.

• Bite-mark analysis is subjective and prone to bias.

Source: Innocence Project and Dr. John Demas, fellow of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences

The other areas that may show bite mark evidence is a good point and makes sense -- it would indeed prove that this is a bite mark, if others were found. I'm not sure if you've ever seen the full picture of SB's face, but one side looked as if it was stabbed repeatedly with an ice pick. Some feel this is animal predation. I feel it was purposeful and caused by a human. Anyway, it would impossible to tell if there were bite marks anywhere else on his face. Sure, it's possible; but what isn't?

 

[Compassionate Reader]

The partial denture was identified by TH in the wmpd interview, IIRC, as "like one I have." It would be extremely improbable for two people to have identical partials. As I said before, one thing that makes this particular partial unique is the acrylic repair pointed out by the dentist. As to not having the actual partial, neither did the experts who said it wasn't a bite mark. Additionally, when a forensic pathologist calls on another forensic pathologist for a "second opinion." the second forensic pathologist does not examine the actual bodies, but looks at pictures and paperwork. These opinions are often admitted in court. As the video pointed out, one of those original experts, after seeing the video, said that the partial "could not be ruled out" as the cause of the wound. If the State of Arkansas would reopen the case, the partial and other evidence could be reexamined and the truth could be determined.

 

[reedus23]

My definition of "evidence" is much more rigid:

My physical "evidence":

The blue fibers still clutched in MM's hand when the bodies were found. (Quite honestly, this could be one and only true smoking gun of this entire case, in my view.)

The blue candle wax found on one of the boys' shirts.

The foot print at the crime scene.

The mystery binding used on MM that hadn't originated from any of the boys' shoes.

The yellow stain on the shoelace hole of one of the shoes.

I am not counting the markings/scrapings on the body, in that I am choosing to separate wounds from what is physical evidence. Basically, this is all there is, as far as physical evidence goes.

With all due respect, in a vast majority of cases that are tried, there is not that one piece of physical evidence that is a smoking gun and just leaves no reasonable doubt. Typically, it is an accumulation of evidence, which, when taken as a whole, lead one to believe that some is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Not beyond all doubt. Just beyond a reasonable doubt. Further, obviously, the amount of proof necessary to simply bring charges is much lower and I quite honestly believe there is more than enough to have charged TH years ago. There are probably a zillion reasons on why that hasn't been done, including the difficulty in obtaining a conviction.

One of the unfortunate results of such highly publicized cases is that the public has already done a pretty damn good job of advancing 1000's of different theories, any one of which could be used by a defense attorney to create that reasonable doubt. I think that to ever get a conviction in this case at this point, the amount of clear and convincing evidence is going to end up having to be exponentially more than had this case been thoroughly investigated and properly charged at the outset.

 

[Userid]

With all due respect, in a vast majority of cases that are tried, there is not that one piece of physical evidence that is a smoking gun and just leaves no reasonable doubt. Typically, it is an accumulation of evidence, which, when taken as a whole, lead one to believe that some is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Not beyond all doubt. Just beyond a reasonable doubt. Further, obviously, the amount of proof necessary to simply bring charges is much lower and I quite honestly believe there is more than enough to have charged TH years ago. There are probably a zillion reasons on why that hasn't been done, including the difficulty in obtaining a conviction.

One of the unfortunate results of such highly publicized cases is that the public has already done a pretty damn good job of advancing 1000's of different theories, any one of which could be used by a defense attorney to create that reasonable doubt. I think that to ever get a conviction in this case at this point, the amount of clear and convincing evidence is going to end up having to be exponentially more than had this case been thoroughly investigated and properly charged at the outset.

Um, let's slow down for a sec. I never said that all cases "need" that one smoking gun of physical evidence, so I'm unsure why you'd assume that. Second, I was addressing what I personally consider evidence in this particular case, with the extremely limited amount of overall evidence that actually exists. There is a lack of "physical evidence" but also a lack of any type of evidence, period. This is what makes this case slightly unique from the others you speak of.

I don't really see public opinion/theories holding any water whatsoever in either investigating or even charging new leads. What will hinder this case is if the powers that be are involved in a cover up: either to protect someone or to simply protect the fact that they were wrong in the first place; neither would surprise me.

There isn't enough to charge TH; and more specifically, there really, really wasn't enough to charge him at the time the murders occurred. How could there be? He wasn't even investigated. He should've been -- yes -- and I wouldn't mind seeing him investigated today; but to say there is enough to charge him is as bad as those who said there was enough to charge the WM3. You don't charge someone based strictly on remarks taken at least a decade after a crime and junk science.

 

[reedus23]

Userid, there's nothing wrong with a differing opinion. In this case, though, it's not just one thing that cements my belief in the involvement of TH in these murders. It's the "preponderance of evidence" that has piled up over the years. It's been rehashed ad infinitum, but, again, as flimsy as the hairs are (this includes DJ's, which could either be from secondary transfer [DJ to TH to tree stump] or direct transfer), it's more physical evidence than has ever existed for anyone else. As to the bite mark, since it was tentatively linked to TH's partial dentures, it's really better than Ted Bundy's. A partial denture, especially one with a repair like this one has, is much more distinctive than even a natural bite mark. As to the information pertaining to the bite mark being reviewed by a "law enforcement type," those who should be doing just that won't do it. That's one reason the rally was held.

I admittedly have not been around as much as of late and therefore I may have missed something but why is it that the hair evidence is now described as flimsy? The hair evidence is pretty damning, not flimsy. It may not be determinative, but it is damning.

 

[reedus23]

I'm assuming that the 1,000 figure represents 1.5% of the population in West Memphis at the time. However, there's something else to consider. I've said it before, but I'll say it again. The 1.5% figure represents the percent of the world's population that share a maternal ancestor with TH. So, if the donor of the hair is not TH, it must be someone with whom he shares a maternal ancestor. That's the advantage of mtDNA. It's passed down, from generation to generation, basically unchanged (with occasional irregularities) from mother to child.

Which is why it is safe to say it is his beyond a reasonable doubt. It's not his beyond ALL doubt but it is his beyond all reasonable doubts. One has to delve into the realm of unreasonableness in order to create doubt that it is his.

 

[reedus23]

Um, let's slow down for a sec. I never said that all cases "need" that one smoking gun of physical evidence, so I'm unsure why you'd assume that. Second, I was addressing what I personally consider evidence in this particular case, with the extremely limited amount of overall evidence that actually exists. There is a lack of "physical evidence" but also a lack of any type of evidence, period. This is what makes this case slightly unique from the others you speak of.

I don't really see public opinion/theories holding any water whatsoever in either investigating or even charging new leads. What will hinder this case is if the powers that be are involved in a cover up: either to protect someone or to simply protect the fact that they were wrong in the first place; neither would surprise me.

There isn't enough to charge TH; and more specifically, there really, really wasn't enough to charge him at the time the murders occurred. How could there be? He wasn't even investigated. He should've been -- yes -- and I wouldn't mind seeing him investigated today; but to say there is enough to charge him is as bad as those who said there was enough to charge the WM3. You don't charge someone based strictly on remarks taken at least a decade after a crime and junk science.

I wasn't clear in my post. I wasn't trying to impart anything on to you personally but was wanting to expound on your post instead.

I agree with you about a cover up would make it extremely difficult. My point concerning public theories that have been advanced is that if TH were to be charged, I think it would be perfectly reasonable to expect his attorney to advance a theory that JMB was responsible or some other theory that has been propounded in the past, and all of the attorney's leg work has already been done.

I will agree to disagree with you about whether or not there is enough to charge TH at this point. I have seen countless cases with charges filed on much less. Obtaining a conviction is a different story so I'm not advocating the filing of charges immediately(though like most, I do think an investigation needs to be re-opened). Rather I was simply stating that there is more than enough evidence to support charges if they were brought. That is a much lower threshold than that needed for a conviction.

I agree there wasn't enough at the time to charge TH but that's mainly because they refused to look as you said, not because it didn't exist. I agree with you on that point.

 

[Userid]

What is there? The hair (which can't directly be linked to TH himself), the bite mark (junk science from an amateur dentist), the depos (years after the fact), the Ballard sighting (hearsay). Did I miss something? Remember, although incredibly creepy, the Mildred F. incident is completely separate from this particular case and wouldn't prove TH's propensity to kill 3 male children.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

I admittedly have not been around as much as of late and therefore I may have missed something but why is it that the hair evidence is now described as flimsy? The hair evidence is pretty damning, not flimsy. It may not be determinative, but it is damning.

Personally, I agree with you that the hair evidence, especially the hair that is supposedly from DJ, is "pretty damning" as you said. However, as has been the case with this case for years, some people have differing opinions on this evidence. As you also said, it is not necessarily one particular piece of evidence that leads to a guilty verdict but the sum of all evidence. Damien, Jason and Jessie were convicted on so-called circumstantial evidence alone (if you discount Jessie's yarns, which, IMO, are simply not credible, especially when all circumstances regarding their existence are examined). It is, indeed, unfortunate that the State of Arkansas will not properly investigate TH. The current movement to get the State to reopen the case is stalled, but I still have hope that someone somewhere in the State of Arkansas will eventually "see the light" so to speak. Unfortunately, nothing to date has so moved the State of Arkansas, but, as long as public pressure remains, it is still possible that the State of Arkansas will reconsider. That is my hope and fervent daily prayer.

 

[reedus23]

What is there? The hair (which can't directly be linked to TH himself), the bite mark (junk science from an amateur dentist), the depos (years after the fact), the Ballard sighting (hearsay). Did I miss something? Remember, although incredibly creepy, the Mildred F. incident is completely separate from this particular case and wouldn't prove TH's propensity to kill 3 male children.

There is a whole thread on it. I just looked to make sure it was still around. Might have to back 3 pages or so. The hair evidence does point to TH to the exclusion of others, not ALL others, but to the exclusion of others, so in that sense it is solid, important and would be used at trial. If a hair found at the scene had the same kind of match to DE, I would say it is just as damning to DE. I'm going to have to read up on who you are referencing, but bite mark evidence isn't considered junk science. Junk science is not admitted in courts of law. Bite mark evidence has been admitted in courts of law for years now. And I don't know what dentist you are speaking about but will read up on it.

If by depos, you mean TH's depos, yes, important, even if they were taken today, decades later.

Ballard's sighting? That's not hearsay. They are giving direct testimony of events they personally witnessed. You may choose not to believe them but they are not testifying to statements made by others.

To the extent Mildred F involves TH, it absolutely is part of this case. It absolutely goes to his propensity towards violence and would absolutely be used at trial, along with his violence towards children. Prior bad acts do not have to exactly mirror the crimes in question in order to be relevant. It would also be admissible at a trial if for no other reason than to destroy TH's credibility as he denied that the incident ever even took place.

 

[reedus23]

Ok, I did a brief search and couldn't find anyone right away. Which dentist is being referred to? Just curious as to what makes this dentist an amateur as well as what exact opinions have been given by the dentist. Is he not licensed and therefore an amateur? Is he in school still? Is he an amateur in the sense that he hasn't given expert testimony before? Or is it that his opinions are just loosely formed?

 

[Compassionate Reader]

reedus,

Let me help you out. Here's the video: http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...&mid=8F6FFE510A9487982D4C8F6FFE510A9487982D4C

The dentist has 25 years' experience in general dentistry. He is not a certified forensic odontologist, but he has presented his evidence to some certified forensic odontologists. One of those odontologists (can't remember if it's David or Mercer) had testified previously that the wound was not a human bite mark. However, after examining Dr. Cowart's presentation, he concluded that the partial denture could not be ruled out as the cause of the wound above SB's eyebrow. This information has not seen the light of day in a courtroom, however. I'm not sure why other than the fact that it was complied after the Alford plea and, since the State of Arkansas considers the case "solved," they have refused to reopen it to date. Hope that helps.

 

[Userid]

There is a whole thread on it. I just looked to make sure it was still around. Might have to back 3 pages or so. The hair evidence does point to TH to the exclusion of others, not ALL others, but to the exclusion of others, so in that sense it is solid, important and would be used at trial. If a hair found at the scene had the same kind of match to DE, I would say it is just as damning to DE. I'm going to have to read up on who you are referencing, but bite mark evidence isn't considered junk science. Junk science is not admitted in courts of law. Bite mark evidence has been admitted in courts of law for years now. And I don't know what dentist you are speaking about but will read up on it.

If by depos, you mean TH's depos, yes, important, even if they were taken today, decades later.

Ballard's sighting? That's not hearsay. They are giving direct testimony of events they personally witnessed. You may choose not to believe them but they are not testifying to statements made by others.

To the extent Mildred F involves TH, it absolutely is part of this case. It absolutely goes to his propensity towards violence and would absolutely be used at trial, along with his violence towards children. Prior bad acts do not have to exactly mirror the crimes in question in order to be relevant. It would also be admissible at a trial if for no other reason than to destroy TH's credibility as he denied that the incident ever even took place.

Bite mark evidence has been allowed in courts by forensic odontologists who are adequately trained and qualified to examine bite marks, and who have dental records at their disposal. This was done by a general dentist (25 years experience, yes, but as a general dentist; not a qualified forensic odontologist -- and yes, there's is a big difference there), using photos, and him guesstimating the actual size of the partial by using a cigarette box. If you think this would be admissible in court, I'm sorry, but you're utterly wrong.

I'm speaking of the dentist that did the bite mark "analysis." His video is on youtube. He submitted it to every Defense team involved in the case, and none of them wanted to use it, because they know it's junk science and it isn't compelling enough to them for a reason.

It's hearsay in the sense that, no one can corroborate this sighting, and it's in direct contrast to other sightings that have the boys in a completely different area at the same time. Bobby Posey, MM's sister and mother, Bryan Woody, Cindy Rico -- they all gave written statements and/or testified in court to these sightings, so yeah, she is "testifying" (your word) against these statements and it has nothing to do with my personal belief. It's fact.

The Mildred French incident would most likely (although, you really never know, depending on the judge, obviously) be admissible to trial and would be used by the Prosecution, yes. That will be the one point I agree on with you, but whether it would factor into a definitive "guilty" verdict is impossible to ascertain. Also, again: if we're keeping with the theme of this thread, by the original poster, she had asked what each person considers evidence in this particular case -- which I took to mean, evidence found at the crime scene and collected in relation to this particular case.

Also, never said the depos weren't "important." Just said they don't implicitly prove guilt.

And lastly, I've read the TH thread. I was asking you that question in that you would be able to show me something new that either had slipped my mind (I've read a lot on this case, it happens) or that I missed completely, but you haven't -- which is fine; just saying.

 

[zencompass]

With all due respect, in a vast majority of cases that are tried, there is not that one piece of physical evidence that is a smoking gun and just leaves no reasonable doubt. Typically, it is an accumulation of evidence, which, when taken as a whole, lead one to believe that some is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Not beyond all doubt. Just beyond a reasonable doubt. Further, obviously, the amount of proof necessary to simply bring charges is much lower and I quite honestly believe there is more than enough to have charged TH years ago. There are probably a zillion reasons on why that hasn't been done, including the difficulty in obtaining a conviction.

One of the unfortunate results of such highly publicized cases is that the public has already done a pretty damn good job of advancing 1000's of different theories, any one of which could be used by a defense attorney to create that reasonable doubt. I think that to ever get a conviction in this case at this point, the amount of clear and convincing evidence is going to end up having to be exponentially more than had this case been thoroughly investigated and properly charged at the outset.

Amen to this!

This case is crying out to be reopened and investigated properly and with fresh eyes. In addition, the partial denture of T.H. needs to be examined during a proper and thorough investigation The fact that this case is still being discussed in the public is paramount to it being reopened and a new investigation started so kudos to everyone here for keeping this case front and centre! We keep discussing this case because we all care and want justice for Stevie, Chris and Michael!

 

[reedus23]

Bite mark evidence has been allowed in courts by forensic odontologists who are adequately trained and qualified to examine bite marks, and who have dental records at their disposal. This was done by a general dentist (25 years experience, yes, but as a general dentist; not a qualified forensic odontologist -- and yes, there's is a big difference there), using photos, and him guesstimating the actual size of the partial by using a cigarette box. If you think this would be admissible in court, I'm sorry, but you're utterly wrong.

Actually any dentist can be a forensic odontologist, as long as they have the training and experience as a dentist. Basically, odontology is just a fancy word for dentist. All forensic means is that they're testifying or assisting within the framework of the legal system. So forensic odontologist is just a fancy phrase to make them seem even more important. Dentists who have never testified before are endorsed by courts all the time as experts as long as they have the training and experience. Sounds like this dentist has both of those and could easily qualify as an expert assuming he doesn't have a situation where his license has been suspended or some other reason for not being qualified.

As for his methodology, at first glance I would agree with you. However, before I drew such a conclusion I'd want to know more about generally accepted practices in the field. What it does sound like to me is enough to justify following up on.

It's hearsay in the sense that, no one can corroborate this sighting, and it's in direct contrast to other sightings that have the boys in a completely different area at the same time. Bobby Posey, MM's sister and mother, Bryan Woody, Cindy Rico -- they all gave written statements and/or testified in court to these sightings, so yeah, she is "testifying" (your word) against these statements and it has nothing to do with my personal belief. It's fact.

We're just talking technicalities here, but that's not hearsay. If it were hearsay, there testimony regarding seeing the kids would be inadmissible. Their testimony would absolutely be admissible. I do get, though, that what you have a problem with is their credibility since their story seems to contradict other witnesses. In those instances, all of the witnesses are permitted to testify and the jury is left to decide who they believe is more credible.

The Mildred French incident would most likely (although, you really never know, depending on the judge, obviously) be admissible to trial and would be used by the Prosecution, yes. That will be the one point I agree on with you, but whether it would factor into a definitive "guilty" verdict is impossible to ascertain. Also, again: if we're keeping with the theme of this thread, by the original poster, she had asked what each person considers evidence in this particular case -- which I took to mean, evidence found at the crime scene and collected in relation to this particular case.

I agree. It would not be definitive of guilt, but I agree, depending on the Judge, but most Judges would allow this incident as well as the shooting of the brother in law to come in. I'm probably just splitting hairs and I apologize for that. I just believe all of that is evidence, but I do agree, it is not the type of evidence you had in mind.

 

[Userid]

General dentists don't have access to crime scenes. They aren't allowed to attend autopsies. They aren't allowed to take measurements/photos/or their own, real-life-to-scale impressions of wounds of murder victims. All due respect, but to dismiss the clear difference and act like they are practically one and the same as you do above is not only disingenuous but completely inaccurate.

A forensic odontologist must first earn a Doctor of Dental Science (DDS) or Doctor of Dental Medicine (DMD) degree to become a dentist. Extensive additional training is required in the techniques and methods of forensic odontology, along with hands-on experience, often by shadowing a more senior professional.

http://explorehealthcareers.org/en/Career/126/Forensic_Odontology#Tab=Overview (above quote from the academic requirements tab).

 

[Compassionate Reader]

The original trial judge certified as an "expert" a man who had no training whatsoever in his field of supposed "expertise" but had "some experience" with it. The dentist in question has 25 years' experience in his field, plus the training necessary to be a dentist in the first place. I'd bet money that he could be certified as an "expert" in a fair trial.

 

[Graznik]

To me, the bite mark evidence is convincing. Does it convince me of guilt? No, but the video convinced me that a comparison between the partial denture and the mark on SB's forehead is reasonable. However, it does add to the mountain of things point towards TH. If you look at each and every one of these things by themselves, they could easily be questioned. But when you add 'em all up, and it's a great big pile by now, they begin too look a lot less like coincidences and lot more damning. Like CR said earlier in this thread, it's the sum of all evidence that matter. Right now, all that we've got is pointing towards one person. IMO, that doesn't mean he's guilty but it does warrant further investigation.

However, like I said before, in an ideal world all DNA present would be tested, and the case would be re-investigated all together.

 

[Userid]

The original trial judge certified as an "expert" a man who had no training whatsoever in his field of supposed "expertise" but had "some experience" with it. The dentist in question has 25 years' experience in his field, plus the training necessary to be a dentist in the first place. I'd bet money that he could be certified as an "expert" in a fair trial.

I understand that CR, but two wrongs don't make a right.

Are you referring to Peretti? Or Griffis -- the satanic "expert" with the mail-order degree? If you're referring to Griffis, then like I said, two wrongs don't make a right. I agree, that guy should not have been allowed to testify.

In addition,if this dentist was allowed as an expert at trial (I don't know why we're so hell bent on court procedure now, but I digress), an actual forensic odontologist with years of experience would most likely be called on the other side to refute this dentist -- and who do you think a jury would more likely believe?

 

[Compassionate Reader]

I don't think that they'd call Dr. Cowart. If this case ever sees the inside of a courtroom again, my guess is that Dr. Cowart's work would be redone by a certified forensic odontologist (who would come to the same conclusion Dr. Cowart did) and be presented by that person, not Dr. Cowart. The fact that Dr. Cowart took the time to make the video presentation despite not being a forensic odontologist doesn't refute the information at all. As I said, it just needs to be presented by a credible expert. And, unless the guy that did the "debunk" video is at least a dentist, I'm going to accept Dr. Cowart's work over his any day and twice on Sundays!