Steven Hayne

More on Michael West's Response

|

Last Thursday, we posted my report about a video of a bite mark examination in Louisiana that showed possible criminal evidence tampering by Mississippi dentist and self-proclaimed bite mark expert Dr. Michael West. The evidence was used to help convict Jimmie Duncan of raping and murdering 23-month-old Haley Oliveaux. West responded a few days later in the Jackson Clarion-Ledger. A few comments on his response:

"I've exonerated three or four times as many people as I've convicted," he said. "I'm a little old dentist from Hattiesburg, and I've got the top lawyers in the country coming after me. The New York Times wrote an editorial on me. Why? They can't stand the evidence."

I've already put up a post addressing West's comment about "They can't stand the evidence."

I don't know what West means by "I've exonerated three or four times as many people as I've convicted." Certainly he doesn't mean he testifies for the defense more than he testified for prosecutors. I consulted with some defense attorneys in Mississippi with knowledge of West's history, and they couldn't think of a single time he has testified for the defense. That isn't to say it's never happened. But it is to say it wasn't that often, and certainly not three or four more times than he has testified for prosecutors.

One defense attorney theorized that West is referring here to the fact that in some of these cases, police or prosecutors will bring him four or five dental molds, and from these he'll pick one that matches whatever bite mark he has allegedly found. In his mind, this may mean he has "exonerated" the others. It's too bad the reporter didn't ask him to elaborate (West won't talk to me at all). But he clearly isn't using the word "exonerate" in the way it's commonly understood.

West responded that the accusations he made up or falsified evidence "is a damn lie."

"You can't make an inflammatory response on a dead person," he said.

I asked Michael Bowers about this. Bowers is the dentist I first showed the video to, and who was so incensed by what he saw that he offered to submit an affidavit for Jimmie Duncan's defense. Bowers is a widely respected forensic odontologist. He is dismissive of bite mark analysis as a means of positively identifying someone because, he says, that sort of analysis has no basis in science science (a position emphatically hammered home by the National Academy of Sciences report a couple of weeks ago).

In any case, Bowers says West is correct on the obvious point that you can't induce an inflammation in a dead person. But Bowers says that what West is doing in the video isn't causing an inflammation, but scraping away layers of skin with the mold of Duncan's teeth. Likewise, the abrasion that appears after a break in the video that wasn't there as the video opens is an abrasion caused by some sort of trauma to the cheek. It is not an inflammation.

More from West:

He defended pressing the mold against Haley's cheek, saying he was following protocol Bowers laid out in his manual that says bite-mark comparisons can be made from "working study model to impression of wound."

I asked Bowers about this statement, too. Bowers says West is lying. Bowers says that this is the technique West is referring to:

1. Photograph the injury using a ruler or scale.
2. Use dental impression material to make a mold of the skin.
3. Take this impression and pour dental plaster into it. This makes a model of the skin.
4. Use the suspect's dental models to place onto the MODEL of the skin.
In the video, West does none of this. Instead, he takes a cast of the defendant's teeth, and jams it directly into Haley Oliveaux's skin more than 50 times. The technique Bowers describes and what West does in the video aren't remotely similar. This isn't a merely a case an expert using unconventional methods. West is altering evidence.
 
Finally,…
West said he doesn't understand why he's drawing criticism when another bite-mark expert testified for the prosecution at the capital murder trial of Jimmie Duncan, now on death row.

Of course that expert, Dr. Neal Riesner, performed his analysis based on photos of the bite marks West took after he had repeatedly jammed Jimmie Duncan's dental mold into Haley Oliveaux's body. Even here, Bowers and the NAS study would say Riesner was out of bounds. There's simply no science to back up the notion that you can affirmatively match bite marks left on skin to a single individual. And to do so from photos of bite marks left on skin is even more problematic.

NEXT: The Immigration Drain

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. But he clearly isn’t using the word “exonerate” in the way it’s commonly understood.

    So he treats the English language the same way he treats his forensic work: by making it up as he goes along just to suit his needs. A future in forensic turdology seems like a good career move for him, since his work would then be less full of shit.

  2. So he treats the English language the same way he treats his forensic work: by making it up as he goes along just to suit his needs.

    That’s more philandering blunderbuss than you freight.

  3. The real danger I see is that he’ll get away with even this. The state of Mississippi has a vested interest in portraying this as an isolated incident or arguing that he thought he was following protocol (honest mistakes happen, right) and that what he did isn’t so different from what he should have done. Anything else from them would be kicking a nest of hornets. So my guess is that they get away with this unless there is a concentrated effort to bring some sort of charges in Federal court against the state. I haven’t followed West’s case log, but could there by any sort of equal protection or civil rights charges or something along those lines brought against the state for relying on him? In other words, is there any evidence of racial bias in his work greater than the general racial bias of Mississippi’s case log?

    Unless some sort of action can be made against him as a general principle rather than based on the specifics of this case, I’m afraid that the state will treat this as an isolated incident and fail to reexamine anything else.

    On a more pragmatic level, I doubt West would ever see prison time as a result of his fraud unless the state basically wants to assign him to death to forestall any future actions because they know that if he was ever put in with a general prison population he wouldn’t last a day.

    Finally, somehow an action needs to be made to keep him from destroying any other video tapes in his possession. He’s now seen what a single tape can do and I bet anyone looking for other tapes he might have made is now going to find them conveniently (for him) missing.

  4. Is anyone else thinking that it wasn’t just Wall Street that was making up fake jobs and then knowingly trying to convince people to pay them to do nonsense? I’m starting to wonder how systemic this phenomenon is.

  5. Untermensch is correct, but I fear that it extends to the FBI as well. Government protects itself. I would guess that the FBI would be under institutional pressure not to investigate this just because of the incredible amount of money and time it would cost the government.

    Even if they were inclined to go after West, they aren’t inclined to deal with 10,000 appeals.

  6. …the FBI would be under institutional pressure not to investigate this just because of the incredible amount of money and time it would cost the government.

    The thing that pisses me off most is this will probably be someone’s logic — someone in the position to make this important decision — despite the fact that states and the federal government waste billions of dollars all the time on crap. When do they ever spend any money, time, or effort on actual important things like real justice?

  7. If I ever decide to become a criminal, I’m going to Mississippi. I have an excellent chance of easily framing others for my deeds.

  8. I watched that autopsy video; it was really quite difficult to sit through.

    My question is, how fucked up does one have to be to literally defile the body of a two year old girl? To just keep stabbing her with teeth and to just think “Hmmm…reuben at lunch sounds pretty good…” and keep jabbing her.

    Ugh.

  9. Yo, fuck Michael West.

  10. “…just because of the incredible amount of money and time it would cost the government.”

    And they spend $50 million going after Barry Bonds.

  11. As a ballistics expert:
    “Could you ask the victim to come in here? I need to shoot her a few times to see if the bullet wounds are the same.”

  12. Does it seem to anyone else there is an awfully lot of biting going on in Mississippi?

    Maybe Dr. West is the one with the fetish.

  13. ..that sort of analysis has no basis in science science

    MS word will point out repeated words for you. Just saying.

    As always, Balko’s reporting is the most awesome ever.

  14. “Does it seem to anyone else there is an awfully lot of biting going on in Mississippi?

    Maybe Dr. West is the one with the fetish.”

    That was an episode of CSI.

  15. “As always, Balko’s reporting is the most awesome ever.”

    But his tweeter feed sucks. “Hey guys! Playin’ with my dogs!”

    Blah. I was hoping for the inside scoop on his investigative reporting.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.