I was surprised by what the guests said on the show. I had no idea that bite marks were still being used and accepted in cases as evidence. People in the justice system usually have limited to no background in science so the evidence being presented in court can be biased and lead to an unfair trial. It’s good to have evidence in a case, but the evidence must be accurate and free of bias. It sounded like the podcast was saying that the people analyzing the evidence given to them by the prosecution were bringing their own bias into the analysis and lying about how accurate the evidence was.
Before listening to this podcast I would have had faith in the evidence, but after listening I wouldn’t be so sure. If the prosecution is presenting bite marks or hair samples I would want to have an expert look at the evidence to question the accuracy. I believe DNA and fingerprints would be a fairly accurate form of evidence, but I would still want the accuracy of any evidence presented against me to be questioned. Evidence such as bitemarks should not be considered credible since some people may have a similar bitemark and teeth constantlly change as they continually wear down.
I don’t think the criminal justice system is living up to the idea of innocent until proven guilty. I think most people would like to believe that the suspect that’s apprehended is guilty of the crime their accused of. If the evidence points relatively close to the suspect then the people collecting and analyzing the evidence exagerate the accuracy of the evidence to reinforce the desired conclusion that this person is guilty. If the suspect wants to question the evidence they practically need an expert to explain why they want an expert to refute the evidence. Most people don’t have the expertise or money to hire an expert to defend themselves from inaccurate evidence.
I think what the justice system needs is a "champion" as Suzanne Bell said. Someone who gives the takes the evidence without an interest to the case. This person should be separate from the prosecution and the defense. This would eliminate bias and ensure for a fair trial. In order for evidence to be used fairly it should be completely free of bias and devoted to accuracy. Only when evidence is treated with the same care as good scientific study should it be used in court as a fact.