评论
打印
The field of bite-mark analysis is one of the so-called "pattern matching" disciplines in forensic science.
咬痕分析是法医学所谓的“模式匹配”学科之一。
Fingerprints are the best known example,
指纹就是最著名的例子，
but the group also includes shoe prints, tire treads, handwriting, and bullet casings.
但这类匹配也包括鞋印、轮胎踏板、笔迹和弹壳的匹配。
We call them "forensic sciences",
我们称它们为“法医科学”，
but they developed independently of what we typically think of as the "science world":
但它们的发展是独立于我们通常认为的“科学世界”的:
the universities and research hospitals, peer-reviewed journals, grant-funding organizations.
也即独立于那些从事科学研究的大学和研究医院，同行评议的期刊和资助机构等。
Those institutions of basic research have fed some forensic fields, but many others lack that foundation.
这些基础研究机构给一些法医领域输送给人才，但还有许多其他的法医领域缺乏这一基础。
You go up the street to the University of Wisconsin and you look for the Department of fingerprints or the Department of shoe impressions.
你沿着这条街走到威斯康星大学去找指纹部或者鞋印部。
It's not there.
都是找不到的。
That's because these fields mostly developed in response to crime scenes and the obligation to study whatever bits of information they contained.
因为这些领域主要是针对犯罪现场和研究现场所包含的任何信息的责任发展起来的。
The examiners look at the samples closely, and make a subjective assessment of how similar they are.
检验员会仔细观察这些样本，然后对它们的相似性进行主观评估。
You know, it's funny.
你知道嘛。
When people watch CSI or think about forensic science,
看《犯罪现场调查》或者想到法医科学的时候，
they often think that it's very high tech and glossy and perfect and often automated.
人们通常会认为这项工作既高科技，又很顺利，很完美，甚至通常都是自动化完成。
And in the real world the pattern identification sciences do not work like that.
但现实世界中的模式鉴定科学并不是这么回事。
It's not that subjectivity makes it illegitimate or necessarily incorrect.
并不是说主观性让这项工作变得不合法或必然错误了。
But we ought to know something about how accurate it is.
但我们应该知道结果能有多准确啊。
We ought to know something about how accurate it is.
我们确实应该知道这样判定的结果有多准确。
For the criminal justice system, this is still a new idea.
但对刑事司法系统来说，这仍然是一个比较新的理念。
So at the time of Stinson's case, nobody knew how accurate, or inaccurate, bitemark analysis was.
在斯廷森案中，谁也不知道咬痕分析有多准确或多不准确。
The man who examined Stinson's teeth, L.T. Johnson, is a forensic odontologist.
检查斯廷森牙齿的约翰逊是一名法医齿科医生。
And bite mark evidence is just a part of what they do.
分析咬痕证据只是他们例行工作的一部分。
When we have tragedies, plane crashes or other kinds of terrible events,
遭遇悲剧，比如飞机失事或其他可怕的事件时，
sometimes we use teeth that are found to help identify human remains.
有时我们也会用找到的牙齿来帮助辨认遗体。
And that's an important tool.
这是一个很重要的工具。
And I believe quite an accurate one.
而且，我相信，也是一个非常准确的工具。
"Rescue workers were there quickly, but they quickly learned there was no-one to rescue.
救援人员很快赶到了现场，但他们也很快发现没有值得救援的受害者了。
The same year he worked on Stinson's case,
就在接手斯廷森一案的同一年，
Johnson led a team identifying victims of a plane crash that killed 31 people.
约翰逊还担任过一个辨认一起导致31人死亡的空难的遇难者身份的小组的负责人。
He would go on to help identify 11 decomposing victims found in serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer's apartment.
之后，他还将继续帮助确认在连环杀手杰弗里·达默的公寓中发现的11名腐烂的受害者的身份。
Forensic odontology had been an established field for decades.
几十年来，法医牙科学一直是一个发展比较成熟的领域。
But it was only in the 1970s that they decided to go beyond identifying victims by their teeth and started identifying suspects by bite marks.
但直到20世纪70年代，他们才决定不再仅仅靠牙齿识别受害者，开始通过咬痕识别嫌疑人。
It began with a 1975 case, People versus Marx, in California.
它始于1975年加利福尼亚的“人民诉马克思案”。
Edgar Marx was accused of murdering his landlady and leaving a bite mark in the cartilage of her nose.
埃德加·马克思被指控谋杀了他的女房东，并在她的鼻子软骨上留下了咬痕。
The bitemark evidence was deemed admissible even though the appeals court conceded that there was "no established science" behind it.
咬痕证据被认为是可以接受的，尽管上诉法院承认这一证据背后并“没有既定的科学依据”。
And it became the germinal case.
这一案件就成了一个萌芽式的案件。
Because all of the precedent establishing cases in high courts across the country cited back to Marx.
因为全国高等法院的所有判例都可以追溯到马克思案上。
Fast forward a few more years.
再快进几年。
Ted Bundy goes on trial and there's bite mark evidence in the Ted Bundy case and it made a movie stars out of a couple of forensic dentists.
泰德·邦迪受审，泰德·邦迪案中就有咬痕证据，这一案件也让几名法医成了电影明星。
And bite mark evidence took off.
咬痕证据由此日渐显赫。
This norm of precedent -- of conforming to past decisions -- it exists for a reason.
这种先例规范——遵从过去的决定——的存在是有原因的。
But it happens to be the opposite of how science works.
但这种规范恰好也与科学的运作方式背道而驰。
Precedent is really important in the judicial system.
先例在司法系统中是非常重要的。
we want constancy, predictability, and we have a rule that like cases should be decided the same way.
我们处理案件时希望能有稳定性，可预测性，而且我们也有一个规则，相似的案例应该处以同样的判决。
Science by contrast is inevitably and unavoidably and always contingent, progressing, growing changing, shifting
相反，科学则是不可避免的，总是偶然的，是不断进步的，不断变化的，
as new research tells us new things and corrects past misunderstandings.
因为新的研究会得出新的东西，纠正过去的误解。
The legal system is not really designed to adapt to that.
法律体系并不是为适应这种情况而设计的。
So a game of judicial telephone convinced the courts
因此，一个司法电话游戏就让法院相信，
that bite mark identification was an accepted area of science, when in fact, it had never been tested.
咬痕识别是一个公认的科学领域，而事实上，这一手段从未得到验证过。
There is no science that we have seen to support that.
我们所见过的任何科学都不能证明这一点。
It's really quite astonishing.
真的很惊人。
it's the one thing that gets truly agitated because there's just no science to support it.
这是一件真的会令人不安的事情，因为没有科学支持它。
A month after Johnson collected models and photographs of Stinson's teeth, he came back with his final conclusion.
约翰逊收集了斯廷森牙齿的模型和照片，一个月后，他带着他的最终结论回来了。
The teeth of Robert Lee Stinson would be expected to produce bite patterns identical to those which I examined in this extensive and exhaustive analysis.
“罗伯特·李·斯廷森的牙齿预计会产生与我在广泛而详尽的本次分析中研究的牙齿相同的咬合力。”
He said the evidence was "overwhelming."
他说，证据是“压倒性的”。
The sketch Johnson referenced at the prior hearing?
约翰逊在之前的听证会上提到的草图呢？
It was never mentioned again.
再也没有人提起过。
He was showing me how you take this overlay of the pictures of his teeth
他向我展示了斯廷森的牙齿照片是如何拍的，
and you put it on the pictures of the bite wounds on Mrs. Cychosz's body
把它放在Cychosz夫人身上咬伤的照片上
and you kind of see how they align.
又是如何的吻合。
And he did the same thing with the models.
他对模型做了同样的比对。
But I wasn't completely convinced that I could convince a jury based on what Dr. Johnson did that Mr. Stinson was guilty of an offense like this.
但我还是无法完全相信，我能说服陪审团，基于约翰逊博士的所作所为，判斯廷森先生为案件的罪犯。
I said we need a second opinion on this case.
我说，我们还需要听听别人的意见。
Johnson recommend Raymond Rawson, who was known as one of the leaders in the field.
约翰逊就推荐雷蒙德·罗森，他是该领域的领导者之一。
So the detectives flew to Las Vegas to deliver the evidence.
于是侦探们飞到拉斯维加斯去提供证据。
And they reported that Rawson "gave a verbal confirmation of Johnson's finding."
他们报告说，罗森“口头证实了约翰逊的发现”。
But he didn't spend much time on it.
但他当时并没有花很多时间去证实。
According to a memo book that one of the detectives kept and later published,
根据其中一名侦探保存并随后出版的备忘录来看，
Rawson met them at their hotel room at the Four Queens,
劳森在四皇后酒店的房间里和侦探们见了面，
took a look at the x-rays and the molds, and said that was good enough for him.
他看了x光片和模具，说有那些证据对他来说已经足够了。
Five days later, Robert Lee Stinson was arrested at his home.
五天后，罗伯特·李·斯廷森在家中被捕。
And we decided that been given a brutal horrific crime like this, we now have two witnesses who are saying it's him.
我们认定他犯下了这样残忍可怕的罪行，现在我们还有两名目击者指认他就是凶手。
And matched against that is what, my gut level feeling?
与之相匹配的是什么，我的直觉？
And so we issued the charge.
所以，我们就对他正式提出了指控。
