评论
打印
To this day, nobody has ever conducted a proper error rate study for bite mark analysis.
迄今为止，还没有人对咬痕分析进行过适当的错误率研究。
And there's really no incentive to do any research, because courts admit it.
也实在是没有做任何正方面的研究的诱因，因为法院是承认这种证据的。”
If courts stopped admitting it they would do the research, right, because they want it to be introduced at trial.
如果法院不再承认，他们就会去做这种研究，对吧，因为他们希望在审判中引入咬痕证据。
Studies that have been done with human cadavers show that there's a lot of distortion when bite marks are made in skin, even in a laboratory setting.
对人类尸体的研究表明，即使是在实验室环境中，在皮肤上留下的咬痕也会产生严重的变形。
The same set of teeth will make marks of different sizes and shapes depending on the skin type, the amount of force, and the orientation of the bite.
同一组牙齿会因为皮肤类型、用力大小及咬的方向留下不同大小和形状的痕迹。
Missing teeth can look like they're there.
缺掉的牙齿看起来会像没缺一样。
Teeth that are there can look like they're missing.
没缺的牙齿看起来也会像缺了一样。
One study conducted by forensic dentists found an unsatisfactory level of agreement among examiners on whether a given injury was even a human bitemark.
有牙科法医经研究发现，对于某一特定伤害是否是人类所致，检验员们的意见不够统一。
But during Stinson's trial, Dr. Johnson told the jury that there was "no margin for error" in this case.
但在斯廷森的审判过程中，约翰逊博士告诉陪审团，本案“没有出错的余地”。
And then Stinson took the stand.
之后，斯廷森站了出来。
He said he was at a party until about 12:30.
他说他那天参加一个聚会一直到了12:30左右。
Went home, and then later went back out, to go to the store with a friend.
之后他回了家，然后又出去了，和一个朋友去了商店。
He said as they walked behind his house, he heard footsteps and shushing coming from the back of the alley.
他说，他们走到他家房子后面时，他听到小巷后面传来了脚步声和沙沙声。
But when Stinson first spoke to the police three days after the murder, he had only told them he went home after the party and went to bed.
但当斯廷森在谋杀案发生三天后第一次面对警方时，他只是告诉他们，他在派对结束后就回家睡觉了。
As the prosecutor pointed out at the trial, he had changed his story.
正如检察官在审判中指出的那样，他改口了。
It's my experience that the jury looks a lot at those alibis and if somebody is lying for no other reason then perhaps trying to get out of something, that is pretty heavy evidence.
“根据我的经验，陪审团会重点关注这类不在场证明，而且，如果某人没有其他原因而撒谎，那么他可能就是在试图逃避某件事，这是非常确凿的证据。”
After a three-day trial, and less than two hours of deliberation, the jury found Stinson guilty of first degree murder.
经过三天的审判和不到两个小时的商议，陪审团认定斯廷森犯有一级谋杀罪。
And he was sentenced to life in prison.
他被判终身监禁。
On appeal, Stinson challenged the admissibility of the expert testimony in his trial.
在上诉中，斯廷森对审判中的专家证词的可采性提出了质疑。
But the Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction.
但威斯康辛上诉法院确认了他的判决。
They were impressed by the dentist's elaborate methods.
牙医精心设计的方法给法官们留下了深刻的印象。
Doctor Johnson used an ' Acrylic ring.' 'Special camera.' 'Three dimensional indentations.' 'Overlay technique.' '75 individual tooth marks.'
约翰逊医生用到了一种‘丙烯酸环’。用到了‘特殊的相机’，‘三维缩进’，‘覆盖技术。’还有‘75个单独的牙印’。
They actually claimed the reliability of the bite mark evidence in this case was sufficient to exclude to a moral certainty every reasonable hypothesis of innocence."
他们甚至还声称，“这起案件中咬痕证据的可靠性足以排除所有合理的无罪假设，使斯廷森的行凶几乎成了板上钉钉的事。”
It's so absurd.
“这太荒唐了。
Tarot card readers have a very complex ancient methodology.
玩塔罗牌的人有非常复杂而且古老的一套读牌方法。
It doesn't mean that they can tell your fortune.
但这也不意味着他们就真的能给你算命啊。”
And with that ruling, Stinson became the precedent-setting for bite mark evidence in Wisconsin.
有了这一裁决，斯廷森就成了威斯康星州咬痕证据发挥作用的先例。
Seven years later, the US Supreme Court issued a decision -- the Daubert ruling -- which should have changed the entire landscape for forensic science.
7年后，美国最高法院发布了一项判决——就是“道伯特标准”——而这项标准本应改变法医学的整个格局。
It said that trial judges must assess whether expert testimony is based on reasoning or methodology that is "scientifically valid."
这一标准规定，审判法官必须评估专家证词是基于推理还是基于“科学有效”的方法。
Daubert talks about reliability, validity, empirical data, error rates, peer review.
道伯特标准触及到了可靠性，有效性，经验数据，错误率及同行评议。
It has all the good stuff and scientists would look at it and feel their hearts would patter, they'd be cheered, because it says all the right words.
所有的优点它都有，在这一标准面前，科学家们都会变得欢呼雀跃，因为它说了所有正确的话。
But the problem with that is it also says it's a flexible standard.
但问题是，它也说了这是一个灵活的标准。
The Daubert ruling gave judges a new "gatekeeping role,"
道伯特标准赋予了法官一个新的“看门人的角色”，
but at the same time, it said that "vigorous cross-examination and presentation of contrary evidence" is still an "appropriate means of attacking shaky but admissible evidence."
但与此同时，它也规定，“有力的交叉盘问和出示相反证据”仍然是“挑战不可靠但可以接受的证据的适当手段”。
So even though judges are supposed to evaluate expert testimony, they can still choose to offload that responsibility.
因此，尽管法官应该对专家证词做出评估，他们还是可以选择推卸责任。
They don't want to be responsible for letting the killer go free because they excluded the evidence.
“他们不想对因为自己排除了证据让凶手逍遥法外了这种事担责任。
After all, the system has always relied on the attorneys to cross-examine witnesses they disagree with and present contrary evidence.
毕竟，这个制度一直都是依赖律师对他们不赞成的证人进行盘问，并提出相反的证据的。
Public defenders are by and large overwhelmed and often don't have the funding to hire their own independent experts.
“这一来，公设辩护律师基本上都手足无措了，他们往往也没有资金给自己一方聘请独立专家。
I mean but they shouldn't have to.
我的意思是，他们不应该非要这么做。
We shouldn't have to be defending against unreliable scientific evidence.
我们不应该非为不可靠的科学证据辩护不可。
And ultimately, it's up to the jury to decide what they believe.
最终是由陪审团自己来决定他们相信什么。
I mean the instructions are very clear that the jury does not have to give any further weight to an expert than any other witness.
我的意思是，指示是非常明确的，陪审团不需要比任何其他证人给予专家更多的权重。
What kind of weight they want to give to them is totally up to them.
他们想要给他们什么样的分量完全取决于他们自己。
But the jury doesn't have basic information about the error rates of forensic methods like bite mark analysis.
然而，陪审团没有咬痕分析这样的法医方法的错误率的基本信息。
Those studies don't exist — in part because judges have never required them.
这些研究也不存在——部分原因是法官从未要求提供这方面的信息。
I don't think there is evil intent anywhere in this circle.
“我不认为这个圈子里有什么邪恶的意图。
It's a collection of institutional participants sometimes taking the easy way out.
他们都跟研究机构有关系，有时是会走捷径。
"Nothing is suitable in our existing system for making the scientific determination that this evidence is questionable.
“在我们现有的体系中，没有任何东西适合拿来做出科学判断，证明这一证据有问题。”
And here's what juries and judges ought to know about it.
这是陪审团和法官应该知道的。
It's not happening.
这样的事是不会发生的。
As Robert Lee Stinson began his life sentence, the evidence in the case was boxed up and locked away.
罗伯特·李·斯廷森开始服刑后，案件中的证据就被封存起来了。
That included the blue pullover shirt the victim was wearing when she was killed.
其中就包括受害者被杀时穿的那件蓝色套头衫。
It was a crucial piece of evidence, but nobody knew that yet.
而这个套头衫是本案至关重要的一项证据，但当时并没有人知道这一点。
And it would be 24 years before the true killer was found.
最终，直到24年后，真正的凶手才被发现。
