跟讀練習: How bite marks made one man a murder suspect | Part 1 - 通過影片學習英語口語

選擇練習模式

每種模式都會開啟全屏練習室。

113 句

如果句子過短或過長，請點選 Edit 進行調整。

At 6.45 in the morning of November 3rd, 1984, a man walked into a police station on the north side of Milwaukee to report

that he'd found what appeared to be a body lying in a lot near his home.

That's where police discovered 63-year-old Ayaan Saichas wearing only a pair of white socks and a left shoe.

Her blue shirt and bra were pulled up behind her head, which was bloody and swollen.

She'd been beaten to death and possibly raped.

Neighbors described the victim as a nice woman.

She was known for collecting aluminum cans and playing bingo at a Ukrainian church on Friday nights.

That's what she'd been doing the night she was killed.

And she was let off after midnight by friends who normally dropped her off after the bingo games.

They observed her walk in front of her home, and those are the last people who saw her alive.

One of the real challenging things about this case was you had no eyewitnesses, you of course had no confession, you had no motive.

This was before DNA profiling, before home security cameras were common, there were no fingerprints on the knife they found nearby.

But the killer did leave one clue.

He bit her.

Investigators took 60 photographs of numerous bite marks.

The bite marks are being analyzed by a forensic dental specialist.

Dr. L.

Thomas Johnson, a dentist and professor at Marquette University, examined the bite marks on the victim the day she was found.

And he gave the cops a lead.

He told the detectives, you are looking for a guy with an abnormality in one of his upper teeth.

So, the cops began knocking on doors.

Three days after the murder, the detectives knocked on the door of Robert Lee Stinson, a quiet 20-year-old whose only criminal record was a fine for shoplifting from when he was younger.

He lived with his mother and siblings in a house right by the crime scene.

Stinson told the police that on the night of the murder, he came home from a party around 11.30, went to bed, and slept until morning.

But what caught the attention of the police was that Stinson had an upper right front tooth missing.

That missing tooth made one of the detectives believe they got the guy.

His partner later told the Milwaukee Sentinel that they went back inside and told Stinson some jokes to get him laughing, to confirm that there were those teeth.

So the state had Stinson appear at a secret hearing before a judge called a John Doe investigation in Wisconsin, where they could have Johnson, the dentist, check his teeth.

The John Doe is the first time that I met Mr. Stinson.

But I'm looking at this kid who is very warm, very affable, very cooperative.

Everything in my gut, my experience in six years in a DA's office of sensitive crimes, you end up like, no way.

No way did this guy do this." He thought they would eliminate Stinson as a suspect.

But that's not what happened.

Johnson looked into Stinson's mouth for 20 seconds, the same amount of time it takes to read this.

And then Johnson said Stinson's teeth matched a sketch that he and a police artist had made, a sketch of what the suspect's teeth would look like based on the bite marks.

Nobody brought the drawing to the hearing, but Johnson said, It resembles what I see here.

Stinson's mouth, he said, certainly is consistent with what I drew.

It is remarkable.

And that was enough for the court to order a full dental examination.

But if they'd had the sketch in the room, they would have seen that it said the suspect would be missing a lateral incisor.

Stinson was missing a central incisor, his right front tooth.

But now the dentist was on the record saying that they matched.

The field of bite mark analysis is one of the so-called pattern matching disciplines in forensic science.

Fingerprints are the best known example, but the group also includes shoe prints, tire treads, handwriting, and bullet casings.

We call them forensic sciences, but they developed independently of what we typically think of as the science world.

the universities and research hospitals, peer-reviewed journals, grant-funding organizations.

Those institutions of basic research have fed some forensic fields, but many others lack that foundation.

You go up the street to the University of Wisconsin

and you look for the Department of Fingerprints or the Department of Shoe Impressions.

It's not there.

That's because these fields developed mostly in response to crime scenes and the obligation to study whatever bits of information they contained.

The examiners look at samples closely and make a subjective assessment of how similar they are.

You know, it's funny.

When people watch CSI or think about forensic science, they often think that it's very high-tech and glossy and perfect and often automated.

And in the real world, the pattern identification sciences do not work like that.

It's not that subjectivity makes it illegitimate or necessarily incorrect, But we ought to know something about how accurate it is.

We ought to know something about how accurate it is.

For the criminal justice system, this is still a new idea.

So at the time of Stinson's case, nobody knew how accurate or inaccurate bite-mark analysis was.

The man who examined Stinson's teeth, L.T.

Johnson, is a forensic odontologist.

And bite-mark evidence is just part of what they do.

When we have tragedies, plane crashes, or other kinds of terrible events, sometimes we use teeth that are found to help identify human remains

and that's an important tool and I believe quite an accurate one.

Rescue workers were there quickly, but they quickly learned that there was no one to rescue.

The same year he worked on Stinson's case, Johnson led a team identifying victims of a plane crash that killed 31 people.

He would go on to help identify 11 decomposing victims found in serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer's apartment.

Forensic odontology had been an established field for decades, but it was only in the 1970s

that they decided to go beyond identifying victims by their teeth and started identifying suspects by bite marks.

It began with a 1975 case, People vs. Marks in California.

Edgar Marx was accused of murdering his landlady and leaving a bite mark in the cartilage of her nose.

The bite mark evidence was deemed admissible even though the appeals court conceded that there was no established science behind it.

And it became the germinal case

because all of the precedent establishing cases in high courts across the country cited back to Marx.

Fast forward a few more years, Ted Bundy goes on trial and there's bite mark evidence in in the Ted Bundy case, and it made movie stars out of a couple of forensic dentists.

And bite mark evidence took off.

This norm of precedent of conforming to past decisions, it exists for a reason, but it happens to be the opposite of how science works.

Precedent is really important in the judicial system.

We want constancy, predictability, and we have a rule that like cases should be decided the same way.

Science, by contrast, is inevitably and unavoidably and always contingent,

progressing, growing, changing, shifting as new research tells us new things and corrects past misunderstandings.

The legal system's not really designed to adapt to that.

So a game of judicial telephone convinced the courts that bite mark identification was an accepted area of science,

when in fact, it had never been tested.

There's no science that we have seen to support that.

It's really quite astonishing.

It's the one thing that gets me truly agitated, because there's just no science to support it.

A month after Johnson collected models and photographs of Stinson's teeth, he came back with his final conclusion.

The teeth of Robert Lee Stinson would be expected to produce bite patterns identical to those

which I examined in this extensive and exhaustive analysis.

He said the evidence was overwhelming.

The sketch Johnson referenced at the prior hearing, it was never mentioned again.

He was showing me, you take this overlay of the pictures of his teeth

and you put it on the pictures of the bite wounds on Mrs. Sychaz's body

and you kind of see how they align and they did the same thing with the models.

But I wasn't completely convinced

that I could convince a jury based on what Dr. Johnson did that Mr. Stinson was guilty of an offense like this.

I said, we need a second opinion on this case.

Johnson recommended Raymond Rawson, who was known as one of the leaders in the field.

100

So the detectives flew to Las Vegas to deliver the evidence.

101

And they reported that Rawson gave a verbal confirmation of Johnson's finding, but he didn't spend much time on it.

102

According to a memo book that one of the detectives kept and later published, Rossin met them at their hotel room at the Four Queens, took a look at the x-rays and the molds,

103

and said that was good enough for him.

104

Five days later, Robert Lee Stinson was arrested at his home.

105

And we decided that to be given a brutal horrific crime like this, we now have two witnesses who are saying it's him.

106

And matched against that is what?

107

My gut level feeling.

108

And so we issued the charge.

109

Dr. Johnson seemed to make sense to me.

110

We had Mr. Simpson who was lying about his alibi.

111

And ultimately the theory is of course the truth will emerge.

112

How's the jury decide he must be wrong?

113

It's so absurd.

下載應用

流利口語所需的一切

AI 發音評分逐句打分

音標練習掌握每個音

詞彙學習建立你的詞庫

詞彙遊戲邊玩邊學

掃碼

Download on theApp Store Get it onGoogle Play

同頻道

FOR YOU

本節課學習內容

通過觀看這個真實案件的影片，你將練習聽懂英語敘事中的細節，包括案件描述、人物對話和 forensic science（法醫學）相關內容。同時，你還能學習如何用英語清晰講述複雜事件，提升聽力和口語的連貫性。這是一個非常適合“看影片學英語”的素材，快來跟著“英語影子跟讀”一起練習吧！

核心詞彙與短語

bite marks（咬痕）：影片中關鍵的 forensic evidence（法醫證據）。
suspect（嫌疑人）：警方調查的物件，如影片中的 Robert Lee Stinson。
forensic dental specialist（法醫牙科學專家）：分析咬痕的專業人士。
John Doe investigation（無名氏調查）：威斯康辛州的秘密聽證會。
match（匹配）：指牙齒與咬痕的特徵相符。

影子跟讀練習技巧

這個影片的語速適中，敘事清晰，非常適合“shadowing site”上的影子跟讀練習。練習時，先完整聽一遍，抓住故事主線；再逐句跟讀，注意說話人的語氣變化，比如警方對話的急切、律師的懷疑。重點模仿“got the guy”“no way”等口語化表達的語調。剛開始可以放慢速度，用“shadowspeaks”的方法，暫停後重復；熟練後嘗試同步跟讀，提升反應速度。記住，影子跟讀的關鍵是“shadow speak”——像影子一樣緊跟說話人，不要害怕出錯，多練幾次就能越來越流暢！

影片中的語法

說話人最常用的結構，並附上影片中的原話：

結構	影片中的用法
被動語態 be + 過去分詞 — 強調發生了什麼，而不是誰做的	were pulled · been beaten · was known
定語從句 who / which + 從句 — 補充說明人或事物	head, which was · friends who normally · people who saw
現在完成時 have/has + 過去分詞 — 過去發生但與現在仍有關聯的事	have fed · have seen

什麼是跟讀法？

跟讀法 (Shadowing) 是一種有科學依據的語言學習技巧，最初開發用於專業口譯員的培訓，並由多語言者Alexander Arguelles博士普及。這個方法簡單而強大：您在聽英語母語原聲的同時立即大聲重複——就像是一個延遲1-2秒緊跟說話者的影子。與被動聽力或語法練習不同，跟讀法強迫您的大腦和口腔肌肉同時處理並模模擬實的講話模式。研究表明它能顯著提高發音準確性，語調，節奏，連讀，聽力理解和口語流利度——使其成為雅思口語備考和真實英語交流最有效的方法之一。

影子跟讀法: 閱讀完整分步指南 →

跟讀練習: How bite marks made one man a murder suspect | Part 1 - 通過影片學習英語口語

選擇練習模式

下載應用

Why financial literacy education in the US sucks

Five things you need to know for the 2026 midterms | America, Actually

How to be less neurotic | The Gray Area

We’re already using AI more than we realize

The Ticketmaster monopoly is over, now what?

The biggest peach myth in America

How to solve problems like a designer

The origin of the '80s aesthetic

Why “Buy one, get one free” isn’t a great deal

How F1 drivers survive their own cars

White, pink, and brown noise, explained #shorts

Why 350°F is the magic number for baking

How did pink become a girly color?

Why China's population is shrinking

The real reason Boeing's new plane crashed twice

Why AI art struggles with hands

Why is everything getting so expensive?

Proof of evolution that you can find on your body

How Vladimir Putin won Republicans' approval

Zohran Mamdani on his first priorities as NYC mayor (Full video interview)

Bộ XƯƠNG trong rừng | Nhân chủng học pháp y | giáo sư Sue Black

The Unabomber | The True Story of Ted Kaczynski

Innocent on Death Row, Here's What You Actually Get When You're Released

Why Ancient Humans Were The Most TERRIFYING Animal Alive

Morgan Uses the Dress to Identify Greta’s Murder Date | High Potential | VTM

Lecter Taunts Will Graham (Full Scene) (Anthony Hopkins) | Red Dragon

Cold Case Files: A 2-Year-Old's Memory Solves a Mother's Murder after 17 YEARS | A&E

Powerful Closing Argument - For The People

How forensic scientists fight crime by analyzing handwriting

High Potential | Opening scene | Kaitlin Olson | S1 - E1

How To Get Away with Murder - "Day One and you're unprepared"

Witnessing the Downfall of a Respected Colleague | Law & Order: SVU

本節課學習內容

核心詞彙與短語

影子跟讀練習技巧

影片中的語法

什麼是跟讀法？