DNA ruled contamination from “unknown persons” over bitemark now ineffective for new Prade trial

Nothing but eyewitness testimony was used to convict Prade of murdering his wife. The court refuses to concede that neither unknown DNA taken from the “bitemark area” nor the pseudo-science of the prosecution’s bitemark expert would be grounds for a new trial. It uses the off-topic reasons listed in OHIO case law that are silent regarding  junk forensic identification (the bitemark on skin) used to identify Prade as the killer. The court says new objections to bitemarks are nothing new. What the judges refuse to consider is that new research supports bitemark identification as being a psuedo-science. In TEXAS, this conviction would be held as compelling evidence of prejudice and considered evidence of an unfair trial.


About csidds

Dr. Michael Bowers is a long time forensic consultant in the US and international court systems.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s