Expert Interpretation of Bitemark Injuries—A Contemporary Qualitative Study

Abstract

This study attempts to characterize the nature of disagreement among odontologists in determining the fundamental properties of suspected bitemark injuries. Fifteen odontologists were asked to freely comment on six images of supposed bitemarks. Qualitative analysis using a grounded theory approach revealed that practitioner agreement was at best fair, with wide-ranging opinions on the origin, circumstance, and characteristics of the wound given for all six images. More experienced practitioners (>10 years) tended to agree with each other less than those who had 10 years or less experience in forensic odontology. The differences in opinions can be at least partly accounted for by the inconsistent nature of approaches used by different practitioners in assessing bitemark evidence. The results of this study indicate that more definitive guidelines as to the assessment of bitemarks as patterned injuries should be developed to ensure the highest possible level of practitioner agreement.

The Error in “Error Rate”: Why Error Rates Are So Needed, Yet So Elusive

“…Since then there has been a flurry of activity in attempts to establish error rates, from forensic domains, such as firearms (e.g., [16][17][18][19][20]), fingerprinting (e.g., [21,22]), anthropology (e.g., [23,24]), and DNA (e.g., [25][26][27]), to domains such as duct tape (e.g., [28]), forensic entomology (e.g., [29]), blood pattern analysis (e.g., [30]), bitemarks (e.g., [31][32][33]), ear marks (e.g., [34]), and even printing defects (e.g., [35]); as well as error perception (e.g., [6])-all important endeavors. However, as can be seen from these references, most of these efforts have taken place within the last 10-15 years, predominantly since the publication of the NAS report in 2009 (12).…”

Epidermis and Enamel

“…Means for improving reliability of bitemark analysis methods and formulating opinions are being assessed. 17 , 18 When methods or techniques that increase reliability are found and validated, they are incorporated as appropriate. The American Board of Forensic Odontology (ABFO) has taken the lead role in this.…”

Odontología Forense I: Las Huellas de Mordedura

“…Mientras la literatura científica especializada y más actual ofrece una permanente revisión de esta pericia (Page et al, 2013), se ha mencionado que la literatura de habla hispana no sostiene un ritmo similar, con una escasa o nula actualización de contenidos adecuados en procedimientos, investigación o * Profesor Titular,…”

“…Mientras la literatura científica especializada y más actual ofrece una permanente revisión de esta pericia (Page et al, 2013), se ha mencionado que la literatura de habla hispana no sostiene un ritmo similar, con una escasa o nula actualización de contenidos adecuados en procedimientos, investigación o reportes de casos (De los Ríos & Barriga, 2011). Dado que esta experticia ha sufrido cambios absolutos de base, y que una conveniente actualización permitiría la adaptación, modificación o reemplazo de sus postulados axiológicos (Pretty & Sweet, 2010), se presenta una revisión cronológica sobre casos y temas de inferencia en el análisis de huellas de mordeduras como evidencia jurídica.…”

“…Como respuesta, legislaciones y sociedades científicas han desplegado protocolos y normas para validar técnicas y peritos (American Board of Forensic Odontology, 2013). Se ha informado que la mayor parte de estas pericias han incurrido en errores como identificar mordeduras en heridas que no lo eran o en dar certeza absoluta a dictámenes que distaban mucho de poseerla (Pretty & Bowers).Mientras la literatura científica especializada y más actual ofrece una permanente revisión de esta pericia (Page et al, 2013), se ha mencionado que la literatura de habla hispana no sostiene un ritmo similar, con una escasa o nula actualización de contenidos adecuados en procedimientos, investigación o * Profesor Titular, …”