As a reminder, bitemark forensics is found to not be valid, but law enforcement uses it to convict anyway.
As far as I know virtually all forensics is invalid. I believe its just DNA analysis, that’s got actual science behind it.
https://www.science.org/content/article/reversing-legacy-junk-science-courtroom
The goal is not to find the guilty party, it’s to punish someone.
I read this a day or so ago. I feel the jury used the bite marks to modify the charge with the thoughts he committed another crime (sexual assault), but the neglegent homicide doesn’t feel off here with the other evidence. He wasn’t even charged with sa. A judge will step in in a civil case, neutering a judgement set by a jury, but won’t reduce being a bad caretaker down from death because the jury feels he committed another crime (influenced from what isn’t just junk science, but it almost sounds like the doctor could have fabricated the bite marks, that the original coroner never saw) that they didn’t even charge for.
