When Experts Get it Wrong - The Ray 克朗 Story

1991年的一个普通夜晚,一个年轻的女服务员金·安科纳(Kim Ancona)在亚利桑那州凤凰城的一家当地休息室关闭时间后遭到性侵犯和残酷地谋杀。没有什么物理证据,没有证人,没有发现谋杀武器,也没有明显动机。案件中唯一的独特证据是在Kim身上发现的咬痕's body. Ray 克朗 was an average citizen, a retired Air Force veteran and a postal worker who loved to play darts at the local bar where Kim Ancona worked. Other than his being a patron of the bar, the only other connection between the two was that Ray had given her a ride home a few weeks past.

Ray was interviewed by the police. He denied being involved in the murder and was able to present an alibi for the night of the murder. Further, shoe impressions found at the scene were not his. Unfortunately, two days after his interview with police, 克朗 was arrested and accused of murdering, kidnapping, and assaulting Kim based solely on bite marks that were left on the victim's body. Ray'唯一的罪过,牙齿错位。

他的审判持续了6天。在审判中,起诉律师几乎完全依赖于一名律师的证词。"expert witness." The "expert witness"是一位来自拉斯维加斯的牙医,他作证说受害者身上的咬痕是雷造成的'的牙齿。雷,曾被媒体昵称"Snaggletooth Killer"代表他作证,并坚决否认参与其中。陪审团不相信雷。他被定罪并判处死刑。

In 1995, 克朗's conviction was overturned based on the fact that the prosecution withheld evidence. 克朗 was given a new trial in 1996. Once again, the same "expert"同一位牙医提出了有关咬痕的证词,雷再次被定罪。但是,这次他被判处无期徒刑,因为法官"concerns"关于咬痕证词的真实性。

克朗's family never gave up on him and in 2000 they hired a new attorney to pursue a review of saliva and blood samples collected during the original investigation. This time DNA testing (which was not readily available in 1993 due to low sample quantities) was done on the saliva and blood. The results showed that blood and saliva recovered from the body and bite marks did not come from Ray 克朗. He was subsequently released from prison. Interestingly, the DNA was linked to Kenneth Phillips, who at the time of the murder lived less than 600 yards from the bar and was arrested only two weeks after the murder for breaking into a neighboring woman'的家,并威胁要杀死她,因为他殴打了她。

Ray 克朗 spent 3,769 days in jail, two years and eight months of which was served on death row, primarily due to "expert testimony"这显然是错误的。