Ep22: Bad Bite Marks
from New Fear Unlocked Hosted by liveloveaine
In the early 2000s, a jury in Mississippi convicted Leigh Stubbs and Tami Vance of a brutal assault. The prosecution’s theory on what happened relied on junk science, homophobic bias and omission of contradicting evidence. Were they really guilty or did the real attacker get away free? Join your host, Aine, in discussing the wrongful conviction of Leigh Stubbs and Tami Vance. Get comfy, don’t trust bite marks, and enjoy. Sources: ‘Bite Marks,’ Homophobia, and Bias: How Two Women Were Wrongly Convicted Because They Loved Each Other - Innocence Project Leigh Stubbs - National Registry of Exonerations Leigh Stubbs, Mississippi Woman, Serving 44-Year Sentence Despite Discredited Testimony | HuffPost Latest News Forensic Bitemark Analysis Not Supported by Sufficient Data, NIST Draft Review Finds Why Bite Mark Evidence Should Never Be Used in Criminal Trials - Innocence Project
Embed this episode
No transcript yet.