Source: The Intercept
by Liliana Segure & Jordan Smith
“[Charles] McCrory was 26 years old when he was accused of brutally killing his wife in the small town of Andalusia. … There was no evidence connecting McCrory to the crime; prosecutors seized on a supposed bite mark found on his wife’s body, which a state expert claimed to match to McCrory’s teeth. … In a September 21 ruling describing the case against McCrory as ‘thin,’ Trump-appointed Judge R. Austin Huffaker Jr., zeroed in on this junk forensic science. Not only would the alleged bite mark not be allowed into evidence today, Huffaker wrote, bite-mark analysis itself ‘is grossly unreliable and unsupported by relevant scientific bodies.’ … Unless the state moves to retry him within the next six months, Huffaker concluded, McCrory must be released from prison. … Yet more than a month after the decision, McCrory remains behind bars with no sense of when he might walk out.” (10/28/26)
https://theintercept.com/2026/10/28/bite-mark-forensics-junk-science-mccrory/