Epidermis and Enamel

Abstract

Critics describe forensic dentists' management of bitemark evidence as junk science with poor sensitivity and specificity and state that linkages to a biter are unfounded. Those vocal critics, supported by certain media, characterize odontologists' previous errors as egregious and petition government agencies to render bitemark evidence inadmissible. Odontologists acknowledge that some practitioners have made past mistakes. However, it does not logically follow that the errors of a few identify a systemic failure of bitemark analysis. Scrutiny of the contentious cases shows that most occurred 20 to 40 years ago. Since then, research has been ongoing and more conservative guidelines, standards, and terminology have been adopted so that past errors are no longer reflective of current safeguards. The authors recommend a comprehensive root analysis of problem cases to be used to determine all the factors that contributed to those previous problems. The legal community also shares responsibility for some of the past erroneous convictions. Currently, most proffered bitemark cases referred to odontologists do not reach courts because those forensic dentists dismiss them as unacceptable or insufficient for analysis. Most bitemark evidence cases have been properly managed by odontologists. Bitemark evidence and testimony remain relevant and have made significant contributions in the justice system.

A Review on Bite Marks in Forensic Dentistry

“…However, investigation of the facts and circumstances of the cases, demonstrate that numerous variables were additionally impacting the situation. Comprehending the reasons and striving to elucidate how, why and where the wrongful convictions happened, is essential to be able to take actions to diminish the probability of such failures from occurring again [46].…”

Summary of published criticisms of bitemark foundations and responses by forensic odontologists

“…As discussed below, follow-up to this article in the published literature includes an ABFO response (Barsley et al 2018) and a law review article (Zalman & Windell 2019/2020.…”

“…In a 2018 editorial titled "Epidermis and Enamel: Insights into Gnawing Criticisms of Human Bitemark Evidence" published in the American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology, members of the forensic odontology community shared that critics of bitemark evidence have ignored progress made in standards, terminology, and taking steps to reduce bias (Barsley et al 2018). These bitemark advocates claimed that a more "conservative" approach has been adopted in recent years.…”

“…These bitemark advocates claimed that a more "conservative" approach has been adopted in recent years. This editorial provides a path forward from their perspective that discusses (1) standards and guidelines, (2) knowledge transfer and education, (3) research, (4) certification, (5) proficiency tests, and (6) casework assessment of the quality, quantity, and significance of the materials involved (Barsley et al 2018).…”

“…The following year a law review article titled "The Bite Mark Dentists and the Counterattack on Forensic Science Reform" (Zalman & Windell 2019) discussed the ABFO response (Barsley et al 2018)…”