smells a bit like the reporter might also have a slant is all. I suspect there are credible bite mark cases.
"The medical examiner who carried out the autopsy, Dr Norma Farley, showed a similar willingness to prejudge Lucio’s guilt. In her testimony, Farley made several critical statements that have been shown to be scientifically inaccurate.
She said that bruising on Mariah’s body must have been caused by a “homicidal” severe beating. False. A medical review of the autopsy reports criticized the medical examiner for failing to detect clear signs that the child had a blood coagulation disorder that would have produced extensive bruising throughout the body.
Farley said that Mariah’s injuries had to have been inflicted within 24 hours of her death – a significant detail as it ruled out as cause of death the fall on the staircase two days before. That was false too. A medical expert who reviewed the evidence pointed out that it is well established that physical manifestations of an injury can take several days to appear.
Farley also told the jury that at least two bite marks had been found on Mariah’s back and that they were caused by an adult’s teeth suggesting a brutal and painful attack. False. Bite mark analysis has been thoroughly discredited.
Advertisement Numerous scientific studies have shown that there is no way to categorically identify a wound on a body as being a bite mark. Nor is there any way to identify from the wound who might have caused the abrasion.
Dr Janice Ophoven, the pediatric forensic pathologist who reviewed the Lucio materials, concluded: “The investigation into Mariah’s death appears to have been significantly prejudiced … and creates a risk of [a] serious miscarriage of justice in this case.”"
And your second part is laughable. How many dozens of coerced confessions do you need to see?