(单词翻译:单击)
It was 1985 and Robert Lee Stinson was on trial for the murder of his neighbor.
那是1985年，罗伯特·李·斯廷森因谋杀邻居被送上了法庭。
"She was the 63-year old widow found dead near the corner of 7th and Center streets.
“被害人是一名63岁的寡妇，尸体被发现于第7街和中心街的拐角处。
The crucial evidence in this case is bite marks found on the body of the victim."
此案的关键证据是受害者身上发现的多处咬痕。”
Two forensic dentists said the bite marks matched Stinson's teeth, but there were some puzzling discrepancies.
两名法医表示，那些咬痕与斯廷森的牙齿吻合，但也有一些令人费解的出入。
They claimed Stinson's broken tooth made this mark even though there was no mark for the adjacent, full-size tooth.
他们声称，那个印记是斯廷森的断牙留下的，尽管与断牙相邻，大小正常的两个牙齿没有留下印记。
And when they were called to testify in court, nobody asked them about that.
当两名法医被叫到法庭上作证时，没有人问他们这个问题。
"The bite had to be inflicted by dentition identical to that of Mr. Stinson's.
“咬痕肯定是由与斯廷森先生相同的牙齿造成的。”
Stinson's trial was a test of whether our criminal justice system was capable of detecting unreliable forensic science.
斯廷森的审判是对我们的刑事司法系统是否能甄别出法医学的不可靠性的一次考验。
And with the future and freedom of a young man on the line, the result was an absolute, system-wide failure.
一个年轻人的前途和自由悬于一线，考验的结果却是系统全面而彻底的一次失败。
The US has an adversarial judicial system where the judge presides over a trial but isn't responsible for uncovering the truth.
美国的司法体系是对抗式的体系，在该体系下，法官主持审判，但不负责揭露真相。
Instead, it's up to the opposing lawyers to present evidence and witnesses that support their version of events.
揭露真相是相互对抗，提供证据和证人来支持他们各自对事件的看法的律师们的事。
And ultimately the theory is of course that through this conflict of ideas and interpretations the truth will emerge.
“终极理论当然是真相能够在这种观念和解释的对抗中自动浮现出来。”
But from the start, Stinson could tell he wasn't entering a fair fight.
问题是，从一开始，斯廷森就看得出来，他陷入的这场对抗并不公平。
He prepared a letter asking for a replacement for his lawyer, who "only took his case two weeks" before trial.
他写了一封信，要求换律师，因为他的律师是在他受审前“两个星期才接手他的案子的”。
Your Honor, I'm facing life for something I did not commit, he wrote.
“法官大人，我正在为一件我没有做过的事情面临生死考验，”他写道。
The judge denied his request, which came in the middle of the trial, and she also denied his lawyer's motion to exclude the bitemark evidence.
法官不仅拒绝了他在审判进行到一半时提出的这一请求，还拒绝了他的律师排除咬痕证据的动议。
She said "there are adequate standards and controls in the area of forensic odontology.
她说：“ 法医牙科学领域有充分的标准和控制。”
It is a recognized area of science.
法医牙科学是一个公认的科学领域。”
"Frankly at the time it was not a close decision for me.
“坦白说，当时做出那个决定对我来说并不难。
Even though it was unique testimony,
尽管那个证据很独特，
I didn't have anything in front of me that indicated that it was not reliable
但我面前没有任何证据表明咬痕证据不可靠，
and it certainly was helpful to the jury, I think,
而且我认为，那个证据对陪审团显然是有帮助的，
and relevant to the issues and so I admitted the evidence. "
跟案件问题也是有关联的，所以我就认可了那个咬痕证据。”
At the time, Wisconsin only required that forensic testimony be relevant and helpful to the jury.
当时，威斯康辛州的规定是证据只要是和案件有关，并且对陪审团的裁决有利就行。
Judges weren't required to assess its reliability.
法官不需要评估它的可靠性。
"You have an older woman who's been raped and murdered and we've got an expert who's saying we know who did it.
“一个被强奸并被谋杀的年长妇女摆在眼前，有专家说我们知道是谁干的。
If the judge excluded that evidence he would gone free.
如果法官排除那项证据，那个人就会逍遥法外。
And it would have been a legal stretch for her to do that given the state of the law and the precedent at the time. "
考虑到当时的法律状况和先例，她要是那么做就相当于在法律上破例。
As the appeals court would point out in a footnote, by the time of Stinson's trial, bitemark evidence had been accepted in 19 jurisdictions and rejected by none.
正如上诉法院后来在脚注中指出的那样，到斯廷森受审时，已经有19个司法管辖区被接受咬痕证据了，而且没有一个地方拒绝接受。
The court in Stinson's case was no different, and the bitemark evidence went before the jury.
处理斯廷森案件的法庭也不例外，咬痕证据被提交给了陪审团。
The first thing that happens when forensic experts take the stand is that they're prompted to list their credentials, to show that they're qualified.
法医专家表明立场时，首先会出现的情况是，他们会被提示列出自己的证件，以证明自己身份合格。
"That makes sense from a certain perspective.
从某种角度来说，这是有道理的。
But there's also a danger that the jury misunderstands the power of that experience. "
但也带有一种危险性，那就是陪审团会误解经验的力量。”
"Dr. Johnson seemed to make sense to me when he testified.
约翰逊医生作证时，我觉得他的话是道理的。
He certainly was qualified, being a professor at the university in the dental school. "
作为大学牙科学院的教授，合格他肯定是合格的。
"Here you have this very learned dentist who has no reason to lie who comes in and tells you this is rock solid science.
“站在你面前的是一位非常有学问的牙医，而且他没有理由撒谎，他进来告诉你这是一门值得信赖的科学。
How is the jury to decide he must be wrong? That's extremely compelling. "
陪审团怎么判定他一定是错的?这一点就会让人对他的证词深信不疑了。”
Dr. L.T. Johnson walked the jury through the evidence.
约翰逊博士向陪审团详细说明了证据。
He even brought models of Stinson's lower teeth and one of the bite marks so he could show how they matched.
他甚至带来了斯廷森下颌牙齿的模型和其中一个咬痕，这样他就可以展示它们是如何匹配的了。
He concluded his testimony by saying the bite marks "would have to have been made by Robert Lee Stinson.
他在给自己的证词作结时说，咬痕“肯定是罗伯特·李·斯廷森留下的”。
The second dentist, Raymond Rawson, testified that "there was no question that there was a match to a reasonable scientific certainty."
另一名牙医雷蒙德·劳森作证说，“毫无疑问，两者的吻合度达到了合理的，符合科学的确定性了。”
Stinson's lawyer did try to get a defense expert of his own,
斯廷森的律师确实尝试过给自己找个辩护专家，
but that expert was never called to counter the prosecution's dentists in court,
但这名专家从未被传唤到法庭上反驳控方的牙医，
because after he examined the evidence, he agreed with them.
因为他看过证据后，同意了控方牙医们的观点。
Instead of two sides battling it out before the jury,
与其他案件中控辩双方在陪审团面前激烈争论不同，
there was one side with two experts making false statements about the science, and one side with no experts at all.
斯廷森案的一方是对法医牙科学做出了错误陈述的两名专家，另一方则一名专家都没有。
During Stinson's trial, the prosecution and defense would ask the two bitemark experts a combined 240 questions.
斯廷森受审时，控方和辩方会向两位咬痕专家提出共计240个问题。
But they didn't ask the most important one.
但他们还是没有问到最重要的那个。
"The real question that we should be asking is what is the evidence that shows us that people in this field reach accurate results?
“我们真正应该问的问题是，有什么证据表明这个领域的人能得出准确的结果?
It's not rocket science."
这并不是什么艰深的问题。”
Forensic scientists can have protocols and guidelines, use well-accepted tools and technology,
法医科学家可以有协议和指导方针，也可以使用公认的工具和技术，
but we won't know if their methods are actually reliable until we have what's called an "error rate study."
但我们不知道他们的方法是否可靠，直到出现所谓的“错误率研究”。
You take a bunch of bite mark examiners, give them samples of bite marks and then measure how often they make a correct identification.
你找一群咬痕检验员，给他们咬痕样本，然后测量他们做出正确识别的频率。
