Add Mark Evidence with airSlate SignNow

Add mark evidence

the jurgen experience um but so so josh is now um hosting a podcast called junk science this is what we started talking about at the beginning then i made you stop and redirect it so let's come back to it so explain like what what is the junk science what are the issues with wrongful convictions and junk science so the all various disciplines of forensic science are used to convict people and in fact wrongfully convict people does polly does a polygraph work polygraph's not admissible it's not so no it doesn't work it's not reliable but is it because you could beat it if you're a psychopath yeah you could beat it there's all different factors that cause your blood pressure to rise you know you may just have high blood pressure you may your heart may beat faster and you get anxious in different situations so it just doesn't work and it's not admissible in any courts but i'm talking about things that you would probably think it just based on pop media even if you're very well read which you are you would say oh well that's reliable like bite mark evidence all right it's complete junk science and the national academy of sciences is a the gold standard it's got the finest scientists in the country that did a review of all of the forensic disciplines that are used in courts and found that with the exception of dna all of these are fraught with problems bite mark evidence blood spatter arson coercion in coerced confession so what the podcast does is it examines all of these for episode by episode it examines all these forensic disciplines and it goes through to explain how and why a their total [ __ ] and b they are in the face of it being total [ __ ] still accepted now like the fact that you got emotional made me want to hug you because it was like i you know it's like it takes a special person to be able to get there on that level but now i want to try to make you angry because i think it's it's the anger that should drive people oh i'm already taking the time take by tape about this and other things yeah but about all this so bite mark evidence okay bite mark look here let me give you an example i have crooked teeth like the bob my bottom teeth are crooked if i bite into a mouthpiece like if i get a mouthpiece formed you can clearly see i can see that it's my teeth you want to know that you want to know the difference between a mouthpiece and human skin everything humans your skin is different than my skin in thickness in consistency if you're flexing when i bite you if it's during a struggle or not and you have to follow the science what the science tells us is that bite marks on human skin are not only unreliable but there has been study after study that the so-called experts that they call odeontologists can't tell the difference between a bite mark and an insect bite they can't even agree they were all shown the self-professed finest odeontologists in the country are all shown pictures of marks on human skin they can't even agree as a threshold matter what's a bite mark and what isn't is that a that's a medical term odin intelligence so odeontologist is is a forensic dentin dentist that fancies themselves an expert in bite marks but it's [ __ ] not only is it [ __ ] but the origin story of all these forensic scientists sciences you end up down a rabbit hole to some [ __ ] up story that sounds like a wacky religion take bite marks for instance there's a guy named george burrows who's a reverend in the late 1690s he's accused of torturing young girls okay and one of the forms of torture is biting them and he's tried and convicted and they take him around the courtroom and pull his mouth open and they point to the crookedness of his teeth the ridges and his molars and they compare it to the bite mark and he's hanged publicly and he cites the lord's prayer at his hanging and you know everybody in the crowd is like that's kind of [ __ ] up because witches aren't supposed to be able to cite the lord's prayer because this was a trial during the salem witch trials he's the the first um posthumous um exoneration i'm aware of 20 years after this they end up finding out that george burrows was in a different town altogether not only didn't bite these people but that the marks weren't even bites this is a part of the salem the salem witch trials and they they they posthumously exonerate him the colony in massachusetts pays his family compensation so watch this in the 1970s there's a guy named walter marks that is accused of biting a victim in a murder and the court in that case says you know what there is no established science here it can't be replicated but bite marks are associated with you know identifying accident victims burn victims and admits it and it gets admitted into evidence the appellate court says well if the if the judge found it credible who are we to overturn it and so joe watch this it now infects and it's probably an unpopular analogy to use now but it spreads across the criminal justice system like a virus every court just starts citing this marx case and judges just start admitting it the national academy of forensic sciences found that there's no way to replicate it that it's unreliable the the there's this [ __ ] crackpot named west who was an odentologist that claimed to use 3d pictures and ultraviolet he so they set him up they sent him you know bite marks and the mold of the teeth from someone other than the defendant and said we think this is the defendant can you match it to this bite mark and he said yes they had sent him the bite mark of someone other than the defendant i mean it is that it is that bad of a junk science so what what we're hoping to do is through the podcast to educate people because it you're right it is how do you overhaul a system right it's a monster and one of the ways that you can overhaul the system is you know everybody says how do you they ask me a lot how do i get out of jury service and i say you know what you should want to be there because god forbid you were accused of something you didn't do wouldn't you want you on your jury so one of the ways we want to do it is to get people thinking you know what i can make a difference here because there's no presumption of innocence we throw that around like it exists it doesn't exist there have been studies done my firm has done one where well over 90 percent of people feel like if you've been accused of a crime um you probably did it look i represented how i met lennox i represented lennox in a case lennox lewis we should tell people okay so i managed lennox lewis and i represented him how i met him was i represented him in a case and um it's interesting most people say to me when i say that what did he do right of course instead of what was he accused of and he actually wasn't accused of anything lennox was suing a boxing manager and a promoter from ripping him off and for stealing from him but if you ask people during jury selection how many of you in a criminal case and when i was you know a lot of jurors were asking well what did he do he didn't do anything but if you ask jurors in a criminal case if a judge will let you ask it but you should be able to ask how many of you think my client he was arrested indicted must have done something wrong all hands go flying up and you know it should be a basis to get rid of people that's not the presumption of innocence that's the assumption of guilt it doesn't exist in this country and it takes more people to be conscientious one of the things that we're trying to do on the podcast is educate them about these junk sciences so that if you're ever on a jury and you hear well the trajectory of the blood mark on the wall shows you that the person must have grabbed the knife from this angle it's total [ __ ] one more time what's the name of the podcast the name of the podcast is wrongful conviction junk science okay so that blood splatter [ __ ] i watched a whole thing online about how how these people figure out like how someone must have hit him this way and i've seen it in movies that's all [ __ ] total [ __ ] so the second episode of the podcast i have a guest by the name of pamela koloff who's an award-winning writer she just won every award you could win for writing an article about an informant in a case of mine and i got to know her and she wrote an amazing investigative piece about blood spatter evidence for propublica or texas monthly or the new york times one of those three i should know and she went undercover deep and she became a certified blood spatter analyst as part of her research this is a discipline that was born in the basement of some whack job up in new york he called it the national forensic laboratory or some [ __ ] like that and it was his basement in his house and he would do things like like recreate crimes by like you know hitting cadavers and watching the blood spatter and just like think about it there's so many things wrong with that the way the blood travels out of the body from a static um you know a static body versus one where blood is circulating already changes it the temperature of the blood is different if you're struggling and i hit you with a blunt force object a hammer a bat and your arm is coming up this way depends on the speed your arm is traveling it is total and utter [ __ ] but it's admissible it's admissible as is bite mark evidence even though in all 50 states as is even though the highest court in texas um based in the work of the innocence project i mean the highest authority in texas uh strongly admonished the courts not to consider blood to consider bite mark evidence but they still do in spite of the fact that there's case after case that proves that these guys who make themselves out to be these experts don't know anything about what they're talking about i mean it's it's we should all be embarrassed and ashamed that this is allowed to go on in our courts you think about it joe forensic ontology was created as a practice so that if there's a disaster if there's a plane crash right and bodies are obliterated they can take a full set of teeth and they can compare it to your dental records now you take the idea that someone's going to bite an imperfect surface right like a finger or an or you know your neck or whatever it is right and now you're going to go with a couple of teeth on an imperfect surface days or weeks later and you're going to go this must be joe's teeth because sometimes i don't even know if you have teeth or not joe check this out in the national academy of sciences report they were able they did a study and they cite to it in the report you can get it online it's they did a study where they would have people with no teeth bite human skin and the people with no missing their two front teeth the bite mark appears as if they have two front teeth people that have two front teeth can bite down and if their incisors are too long it can make it appear that they're missing two front teeth so it's just and you know as far as blood spatter is concerned there is a case i think it's the peterson case that my friend david rudolph did you know the staircase that show on netflix guy was accused of pushing down the stairs i think it was in this case um where they were trying to recreate the blood spatter analysts were trying to recreate the spatter in the staircase and there's video of them doing it and they keep on hitting this this receptacle full of blood and they can't recreate it and they keep on doing it and doing it and finally on the whatever 15th try they get it and they all start celebrating and high-fiving you're supposed to be able to replicate this [ __ ] and the reason why dna is is so reliable is that it's going to be the same every time it is the gold standard now there are ways to manipulate it there are certain people out there that are trying to [ __ ] with it right now how so um you know like for instance there's this guy who runs this computer algorithm and he claims to be able to take a mixture of a bunch of different people's dna and untangle it right and basically be able to say whose dna is what and you know he won't give the source code for his data and you know this shouldn't be a black box so there's there's some things going on like that but for the most part when it's done correctly and the right standards are applied you can bet on dna but a lot of these pattern matching disciplines blood spatter fingerprints in some instances bite mark evidence you know and it what are the other ones um tread tracking on shoes arson arson big one arsenal when they can figure out like where a fire was started i always wondered about that oh sorry no please uh so arson i thought you're done arson science is not science whatsoever arson uh you can become a licensed arson investigator with a 40 hour correspondence course i know it sounds like a joke but it's true same thing with blood spatter it's a 40 hour course at the end of the week you can go into any court in the country and say i'm a blood spatter right i always wonder because i would see a house burnt to the ground then they would say oh they determined it was started by a fire and this is how they determined it i'm like but everything's burnt out like how do you know there are countless people serving hard time um in in prisons in america um joanne parks i'm christine bunch who i just interviewed on my podcast she brought me to tears who was convicted of setting a fire i mean her case in indiana how insane is this joe we're about to release this episode but she was a 21-year-old mother of a three-year-old boy and her trailer caught fire she was asleep she woke up she couldn't get into the sun's room it was too the fire was too out of control already and the little boy died and the fact is that she they they went they arrested her six days later in charge with arson and murder and the prosecutor said to the jury look we admit we don't have a motive we don't have a motive she was a loving mother with no mental issues with no pers i asked her you have any other history of law enforcement she goes yeah once i got a warning for going five miles an hour over the speed limit and she everybody said she was a doting loving mother she was working and going to school and she lost everything she owned she didn't have insurance she didn't have a shirt to wear at the end of this right because she was in her pajamas it's like i mean and it was an electrical fire it was proved 17 years later by actual experts what did they use as the arson evidence against her in the case they claimed that there was a certain type of accelerant which there wasn't they withheld evidence that there was a kerosene that had been uh present in the house from previous owners who had who had to come forward and said that there was you know and that there was you know there was also they just decided that she was guilty and they were going to try to win and and that's the sick thing about it is that these arson cases there is no there was no crime there was a tragedy but no crime nobody and how long did she get away from co-women she was in for 17 years wow and she's such a beautiful human i mean you would you would meet her even and you just want to hug her she's just a magnificent human who in prison did the most phenomenal things and now she's helping others she has an organization maybe you could look it up jamie she has a wonderful organization i'd like to shout out um and she's making a real difference and she i think helped pass the compensation statute and you know sorry i'm going to step on your word i was just going to say that what happens with a lot of these forensic sciences is they work they reverse engineer an outcome so they decide that the person did it and there's all this this confirmation bias i know that i've heard you talk about it and you're familiar with it you know you know the desired outcome so you confirm that bias so you know they then start looking at a streak from a smoke stain on the wall and knowing that the theory is that there was a match struck and placed against the wall right they will say well that's why you see it the pattern that you do of that stain on the wall of smoke where the reality is is that there are a lot of different explanations for how something can look the scientific analysis of of charred remains not remains of people but remains of different things chemical compounds and things and if you're working to reverse engineer an outcome you know it's and it's easy to make this stuff sound reliable because if you don't have experience with it i mean look this is a big i hadn't done any bite mark cases in all of my cases so i actually tried to approach it with an open mind and i'm i'm literally stunned at what i'm finding out doing research for the episodes because it sounds like some wacky religion you know that somebody invented in their house and people buy it so is all this stuff still in use because no one has exposed the fact that it's all junk science or is it because it's established as a part of what they accept in trials and they just haven't made the corrections yet because if they did then they would have to accept the fact that all these other convictions that were based on this junk science would be open to reinterpretation in the trailer for junk science josh addresses exactly that and he does it very eloquently which is that along with chris fabricant who is a strategic litigation director at the innocence project it was actually a post i created in honor of my dad who's not with us anymore um or i helped to create i should say and he does an incredible job but basically they keep using it because the precedent is there right once it's and josh talks about this and maybe we could even play the trailer but um sure you talk play the trailer yeah can we sure can we pull it up on on on the podcast yeah jamie will follow as soon as he finds it yeah and then that'll that'll say it more eloquently than i possibly can this is so [ __ ] hard to listen to and then there's shaken baby syndrome which we'll be covering on junk science which is which is like everyone's heard those words it's a it's a ridiculous idea that you could shake a baby hard enough to rattle its brain without injuring it in any other way right so we're supposed to believe that a woman who's a mother right first of all it's hard to believe that they would kill their kid but okay let's let's let's suspend that disbelief how are you going to shake a baby right you're this you're a strong guy okay but let's say you don't have a big muscle mass and you have a baby sometimes they're toddlers it could be a 15 20 pound kid you're going to hold it out at arm's length and shake it no your arms aren't going to do and by the way unless i'm mistaken if peop most people they get mad at something they don't shake it they hit it they kick it or they throw it right you get mad at your golf club you don't shake it yeah they hit a bad shot whatever i mean it's you know it's madness and yet it's accepted in courts and there are countless people serving time you know melissa kaluzinski is one i can't leave her out john jones in ohio innocent as could be just misdiagnosed [Applause]