In 1985, Charles McCrory found his wife, Julie Bonds, brutally murdered in their Andalusia, Alabama, home. Just two small marks on her arm—misrepresented in court as a definitive “bite mark”—became the sole forensic evidence used to convict him for her murder.

A forensic odontologist, famed for testifying at Ted Bundy’s trial, claimed the impressions matched McCrory’s like a fingerprint. Yet decades later, that same expert fully recanted the testimony, acknowledging the scientific consensus now recognises bite mark evidence as unreliable “junk science”.

With no blood, no DNA, and hair in the victim’s hand that didn’t match McCrory’s, his conviction rested entirely on this flawed forensic interpretation. Over 40 years later, even as two independent forensic dentists testified that the so called bite mark was never human, Alabama courts repeatedly denied him a new trial, judging that his lengthy imprisonment still stood, and that procedural hurdles outweighed modern science

In July 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to review his case. Justice Sotomayor warned that wrongful convictions like his, based on “faulty science,” are startlingly common and urged state and federal lawmakers to enact stronger safeguards to prevent miscarriages of justice.

EARLY AND AD FREE ACCESS: for as little as $1.69 a week!

Apple + HERE

Patreon and find us on Facebook here.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.