No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
Review of a Forensic Pseudoscience: Identification of Criminals from Bitemark Patterns
Abstract
The forensic sciences are a combination of laboratory procedures and physical comparisons of objects associated with victims, perpetrators, and crime scenes. The former is largely university-based protocols adopted by crime labs. The latter is predominantly pattern-matching tools originally developed by police examiners or experts deemed by courts to be relevant to forensic matters. These Court accepted experts bring their reasoning and conclusions into the legal arena. This subgroup of forensics has undergone significant scrutiny in regards to its history of exaggerated claims and weak scientific foundations. This paper addresses the rise and fall of bitemark pattern analysis (i.e. “matching” bitemarks in human flesh to human teeth) in the environment of opposing interests and agendas.
... Bitemark testimony has been used in criminal prosecutions without any substantial scientific validation, estimation of mistake rates, or reliability testing. Forensic dentists may have the highest error rates of any forensic identification profession still in use [11][12][13]. Although there have been studies for and against the presence of bias in bitemark analysis, there are few studies that consolidate the literature in a single article. ...
... A landmark court case in the USA from 1975, despite being characterized as "unusual" by the testifying dentists, played a pivotal role in the widespread acceptance of bitemark evidence in all 50 US states. The concept of bitemark identification is founded on the premise that human teeth possess distinct characteristics, and that skin can accurately record the impressions of these dental markings [12]. ...
... Dentists testifying in court and pledging loyalty to the idea of human "dental fingerprints" have validated the "uniqueness" of the claim. The lack of substantial study was not enough to discourage the defenders of bitemarks, and these "belief" statements, without supporting facts, were incorporated into bitemark identification cases that were accepted in state and federal courts across the United States [12]. The ABFO issued stricter rules in February 2016 to restrict its members use of bitemark testimony. ...
Given that some suspected perpetrators were wrongly convicted, a defective bitemark analysis is comparable to dentists’ most crucial clinical decisions regarding assessment. Bias affects human bitemark analysis beyond the limitation of the evidence itself. The aim of this study was to explore the potential for different types of bias in bitemark analysis and the methods involved in that analysis by conducting a scoping review. Results showed that the 14 articles that explore the topic of bias in bitemark analysis were published from 2006-2022. Publications were from the USA mainly (n = 7), followed by the UK (n = 3), Australia (n = 2), New Zealand, (n = 1) and the Netherlands (n = 1). Of these publications, 36% addressed contextual bias, while 57% acknowledged cognitive bias. According to the findings, preventive measures consist of limiting the availability of unrelated data during research, employing several comparison samples for a more impartial assessment, and repeating the analysis while being blind to past findings. Nevertheless, the physical limitations of the evidence such as distortions are still strongly present.
... Forensic dentists may have the highest error rates of any forensic identification profession still in use. [10][11][12] Although there have been studies for and against bias in bitemark analysis there are few studies consolidating literature in a single article. The aim of this study was to explore the potential of different types of bias in bitemark analysis and methods during analysis by conducting a scoping review. ...
... level 5 is organizational and cultural factors. [12] Procedures for controlling the impact of context, like sequential unmasking (at a case or discipline level) or the use of blind 13 analytic techniques, can help to lessen the issue. Contextual bias can be lessened if techniques like these are used and forensic practitioners are not exposed to extraneous (i.e., domain irrelevant) information before reviewing evidence. ...
... How forensic investigators should communicate their findings is a topic of continuous discussion. [12] While presenting the report in court of justice forensic examiner experience three issues. The first is disclosure, that is, what is actually reported, and how it is expressed within the forensic report. ...
Considering bitemark evidence, forensic dentists must give testimony that could have catastrophic consequences. A bitemark is often the only physical evidence on a body, and odontologists' testimony should be powerful and simple to understand. Given that perpetrators may be executed or imprisoned for life, a defective bitemark analysis is comparable to dentists' most crucial clinical decisions regarding diagnosis. Bias affects human bitemark analysis, and forensic dentists must examine its invisible impacts to avoid making mistakes. The aim of this study was to explore the potential of different types of bias in bitemark analysis and methods during analysis by conducting a scoping review. The majority of the 14 articles that were taken into consideration were published in 2019. USA, UK, Australia, New Zealand, and the Netherlands published the most articles. 36% of the publications addressed contextual bias, while 57% acknowledged cognitive bias. Preventive measures have been recommended to address bias in bitemark analysis. These consist of limiting the availability of unrelated data during the research, employing several comparison samples for a more impartial assessment, and repeating the analysis while being blind to past findings. These preventative measures reduce cognitive and contextual bias and improve bitemark analysis in forensic investigations.
... based on the comparative analysis between bitemark records and the dental information collected from suspects. The purpose of this study is to gather results presented in the form of a forensic report that may assist in the identification of criminals, together with the remaining physical and circumstantial evidence inherent to a criminal proceeding [1,2]. ...
... The resulting pattern depends on the position of the tongue, the occlusion of the dental arches, the intention of the bite, the reaction of the person who is bitten, the type of resulting injury and the substrate. The confirmation of the injury as a human bitemark allows its treatment as a physical sample and enables the identification and consequent exclusion or non-exclusion of a suspect, or also an inconclusive analysis [1,3,4]. ...
... This method of human identification has some limitations, so it requires a study supported by specific expert evidence necessary for a forensic analysis. The inability to obtain enough data that allows experts to exclude or not exclude a suspect undermines the conduction of a forensic study and compromises the contribution of this forensic subfield to criminal investigation [1,2,4]. ...
Human bitemarks are normally associated with violent crimes, and when recorded, they can be the basis for the constitution of
forensic evidence in a legal context. The recording and the comparative analysis of these marks, allied with data on the suspects,
enable the elaboration of forensic reports that lead to the exclusion or non- exclusion of suspects, and they also contribute to the
unfolding of a criminal proceeding in which the court is responsible for issuing a sentence to a defendant. The legal validity of the
comparative analysis of bitemarks in human identification is a widely discussed topic in the scientific community. The numerous
publications on this subject reveal different opinions regarding its contribution in crime situations and whether or not it is legally
valid. The objective of this literature review is to determine the legal significance of bitemarks in the identification of criminals,
considering the methods used to study bitemarks and the reliability of their results.
This review is based on the analysis of bibliographic contents available at the PubMed database, which resulted from a search
with the terms “bitemark”, “human identification”, “forensic dentistry” and “legal dentistry”, written in English and published over
the course of the last 10 years.
We concluded that, in spite of the controversy around this topic, the comparative analysis of bitemarks is currently regarded
as valid whenever the guidelines of the American Board of Forensic Odontology (ABFO) are followed. These guidelines ensure the
evolution of the methods of analysis and an objective distinction between the cases that are predisposed to a comparative analysis
and those that are not; besides, they also reduce the occurrence of false positives while regulating the contents of forensic reports
and the findings of forensic dentists, preventing the drawing of conclusions that would otherwise lead to the wrongful conviction of
innocents, as it has been observed in the past.
... The well-known American Board of Forensic Odontology was founded in 1976, just after People v. Marx, 1975, 2 for many "a seminal case" establishing the scientific admissibility of bite mark evidence. 3 Only a few years later, "the most prominent bite mark case" 4 Bundy v. State, 1984, 5 underlined dentistry's triumphant entry onto the forensic scene; the fascination with this case is easily recognizable, almost bordering on myth in American folklore. 6 Those who grew up and trained in this discipline use this case as our benchmark, and the images of Dr. Richard Souviron presenting his expert testimony is a standard in the field. ...
... Regarding the bite mark comparison, I also believe that this discussion should be conducted fairly, taking the same scrutiny to all "methods of identification" (ballistics, handwriting, toolmarks, fingerprints, hair matching) as defined more correctly by Bowers when he says that some of them "moving forward, while other being professionally rejected or irretrievably demoted in status". 3 I deeply lament the damage we are receiving, but I also regret the silence of the scientific societies that should be issuing formal opinions about it. ...
... Forensic odontology mainly focuses on the identification of unknown remains by teeth, jaw cranial facial bones analysis, Oro facial trauma associated with personal abuse, dental jurisprudence, and research of new related technologies in dentition. In the era of 1950s, the first case in the United States was solved using bitemarks related to burglary based on bitemarks it's partly eaten cheese found at the scene of the crime [6]. We can say that the dentition pattern of every person is unique even in the case of monozygotic twins. ...
Background: Taking account from the National Crime Records Bureau there were 31,677 cases of sexual assault registered in the single year 2021, which implies roughly 80 cases daily. To address such serious crimes forensic professionals must be aware and focus on traditional pieces of evidence such as DNA, Seminal Stains, bitemarks or struggle marks, and other confirming shreds of evidence. Bite mark analysis is a vital component of forensic investigations, offering a distinct form of evidence in criminal proceedings. By leveraging the uniqueness of dental structures, bite marks can contribute significantly to personal identification and the resolution of crimes involving assault, sexual offenses, and homicide. Main Body: We portrayed the collection, packaging, and preservation methods of bitemark, and included the DNA extraction from saliva. Structural distinctive features which are used to differentiate human dentition from animal dentition. Accidental and intentional crimes then easily distinguished. In the case of wildlife forensics also bitemarks have wide scope and importance for determination of species and tagging them with their habitat. Short Conclusion: In recent times with rapid evolution in computational capabilities, we are able to use complex applications of computer science for the purpose of three-dimensional comparison of bitemarks, use of digital image processing and image modifications. the statement on which most of us will agree is Bite marks are always being interest of investigators in cases of sexual assault and child abuse.
... Despite the potential of BM analysis in forensic investigations, there are significant limitations to consider, including possibility of distortion in BMs due to skin elasticity and movement, variability in human skin characteristics, and subjectivity involved in interpreting BM evidence [44]. Instances of wrongful convictions based on flawed or misleading forensic analysis [45], particularly highlighted by organizations, such as the Innocence Project, have raised concerns about the reliability and scientific validity of BM analysis in criminal investigations [46]. ...
... The technologies through which we tell our stories influence how we view the world. Within forensics, for instance, many different methods and tools (bite mark analysis, lie detectors, blood pattern analysis, to name some) have been hailed as 'the ultimate tool,' 'the most accurate' instrument-as saviors, as solutions to the many problems of establishing truths about crimes and about people (see e. g., Bowers, 2019;Bunn, 2012). What is often forgotten, however, is the complex landscape of other technologies that such methods and tools emerge from. ...
We should be careful of overstating the importance of technologies that inspire dramatic narratives. All digital tools and practices have material counterparts, and while some may be less flashy, shiny, and indeed less captivating, they are key players in the fields that we study. This chapter discusses how high- and low-tech operates in tandem and suggests that low-tech must be taken seriously in the development of digital criminological theory
... Lesioni acute o esiti di lesioni da morso possono indicare un abuso, in quanto i denti sono spesso utilizzati sia come strumento di aggressione, sia come mezzo di difesa dell'aggredito. Pertanto, l'analisi dell'impronta del morso, basata sul principio che "non esistono due bocche uguali", può risultare di fondamentale importanza per l'identificazione del reo, nonostante a tutt'oggi controversa per mancanza di una scala di valutazione statistica scientificamente supportata [21]. Vero è che affollamenti, rotazioni, asimmetrie, diastemi, patologie dello smalto, elementi estratti, non erotti, sovrannumerari o fratturati, segni di abrasione o erosione, ricostruzioni coronali e riabilitazioni protesiche sono solo alcune delle caratteristiche che, uniche o combinate tra loro, danno luogo a dentature che difficilmente potranno ripetersi in due distinti individui. ...
Child maltreatment and neglect are still a major public health problem worldwide. Dentists are in a privileged position to recognize any childabuse and/or neglect because most of the lesions are found precisely in the facial area, involving teeth and oral cavity. Next to the pediatrician, who regularly examines the child as he grows up and occupies a privileged position in recognizing family situations at greater risk and in supporting the family, the dentist has an important diagnostic support function, having a specific competence for the recognition of non-accidental injuries and neglect with oro-facial localization. As indicated in the Ministry of Health’s guidelines for the management of dental trauma, it is desirable that, in the near future, standardized multidisciplinary intervention strategies be promoted, within which both professions, aware of their respective sentinel roles in protecting abused children, can actively collaborate in establishing detection and reporting protocols.
... This review shows that the areas and topics most chosen by researchers do not correspond to those priorities recognized by the ASFO in 2013 [11]. As of 2019, there were still American states that had not deepened their scrutiny towards bite mark evidence, and wrongful convictions based originally on this type of evidence continue to be exposed [27]. ...
Dental age estimation (DAE) is one of the most reliable and useful scientific methods employed by forensic odontology (FO) for human identification. In 2009, the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report highlighted the need to deepen research in many disciplines, among which FO received strong criticism for specific expertise. The aim of this review is to provide a comprehensive overview in order to systematically map the latest original research done in FO, as well as identify DAE within this field. A systematic search was performed from 2014 to 2019. In total, 644 studies were identified for qualitative analysis: DAE was the most studied topic (41.30%). Asia was the most productive continent with 58.27% of the global production on DAE; India was the most productive Asian country, with 32.33% and 55.48% of global and Asian production, respectively. The University of Macerata (Italy), KU Leuven (Belgium), University of Split (Croatia), and University of São Paulo (Brazil) led DAE research. Authors from leading countries on DAE research demonstrated great individual productivity, which is evidence of their scientific efforts, but also possible risks if the continuity of this line of research depends on them. Although FO has significantly focused its research on DAE, the absence of publications on controversial topics but necessary for research according to the NAS report shows the possible lack of interest of authors or journals to address them.
... Without any data related to the validity and accuracy of their work, they would declare that the suspect had in fact bitten the victim to "a reasonable degree of scientific certainty" or "indeed and without doubt." As it later turned out, many bite mark experts were not able to distinguish a bite from a bruise, or a human bite from an animal bite, let alone identify the individual who was the source of a given bite mark [7]. ...
This paper aims at describing the ways in which uncertainty is (or is not) measured in the field of forensic science and how the measure of uncertainty can be used to make better judicial decisions. From the traditional fingerprint comparison to the latest advances in forensic DNA analysis, we discuss the advantages and drawbacks of various ways of reporting forensic science results. We point to past and current controversies, and analyze what remains to be done in the field to ensure that the probative value of forensic science evidence is communicated to judicial fact finders in a way that is scientifically robust, balanced and transparent, to allow them to make coherent decisions.
... In the 1970s, research about human tooth shape variability has occurred in superficial attempts and 'uniqueness' became confirmed in court room statements by dentists [4]. Another reasons for uncertainty about 'the value and scientific validity of comparing and identifying bite marks' are the unsatisfactory nature of skin as a substrate for registration of tooth impressions (primary distortion) and also the posture of the body (secondary distortion) [5][6][7]. ...
The properties of the skin and the posture of the body during photographic recording are factors that cause distortion in the bite mark injury. This study aimed to explore the degree of distortion between a ‘touch mark’ (method 1) and a ‘bite mark’ (method 2) on the left upper arm at three different positions (arm relaxed; arm flexed in two different positions). A pair of dental casts with biting edges coated in ink was used to create a mark in 30 subjects (6 ♂, 24 ♀) aged 20-50 years old. Photographs were taken using a Nikon DX digital camera (D5000). The mesiodistal widths and angle of rotations of both upper right central incisor and lower right central incisor and the inter-canine distances were analysed and compared with the true measurements using Adobe Photoshop CC 2017. Statistical analysis was carried out using SPSS Statistics 22 applying a 2 (mark type) x 3 (position) repeated measures ANOVA. For all measures studied there was a statistically significant difference between mark types and positions. In the case of bite marks, a great degree of distortion was detected, and this increased further when changing the position of the arm. The findings demonstrated that skin properties and posture influence distortion. This could lead to inaccurate measurements and misleading pattern interpretation of bite mark injuries.
Science and health journalism are tasked with informing the general public, as concisely and accurately as possible, about topics relevant to society, such as the health and environmental impact of smoking, the existence and dangers of climate change, the benefits of mask-wearing, the use of oral contraception, or the value of immunisation. At the same time, science and health, just like many other topics, have been politicised since the earliest recorded times, a phenomenon that often impacted their ability to positively shape society and continues to do so. In this chapter, we attempt to define politicisation, analyse some of the factors that favour its emergence and circulation in society, and present several examples of topics with scientific, medical, and public health relevance that became politicised globally, often with detrimental effects on individual and collective wellbeing. As we explore strategies to prevent or limit the political polarisation of science- and health-related topics, we emphasise the importance of identifying conspiratorial discourse and misinformation, particularly on social media, and the need to empower the consumption of information related to the multiple facets of health and media literacy.
Forensic odontology plays an important role in the judicial field. In particular, bite mark analysis has been used as encouragement in identifying criminals and is considered one of the strongest pieces of evidence resulting from dental examination put up in the judiciary. Based on the scientific understanding that there are no two similar human dentitions, this uniqueness proposes dentition marks as a tool for the identification of the perpetrator. The procedure of comparing bite marks with suspect’s teeth morphology including measurement and analysis of shape, position at arch, and size of each individual’s teeth. The conservative technique of analyzing bite marks on the victim’s skin or flesh or objects compared to suspect dentition by casting an impression proved to be the easiest method on the matching process. However, that comparison technique has many factors of subjectivity and distortion that could mislead the identification. DNA analysis from saliva left on the victim’s skin could be valuable examinations but not always conceivably. DNA is often already damaged when examining bite marks due to environmental factors, such as time, temperature, humidity, and even mistreatment from health workers. The use of computer-assisted methods has elevated the accuracy of morphology compared, thus better interpretation. With software assisting the comparison process, such errors tend to be minimized and lift the value of bitemark analysis. This review aimed to cover advantage technique and procedure bite marks analysis, especially with computer-assisted so bite mark analysis could be stronger legal evidence accepted in court.
A Odontologia Legal é uma das especialidades da Odontologia e um dos seus campos de atuação, a carreira como perito oficial, especificamente no cargo de Perito Odontolegista ou, ainda, como Perito Criminal, é vinculada à realização de concurso público. O objetivo deste trabalho foi apresentar um panorama dos conteúdos mais recorrentes nas provas objetivas de concursos públicos para o cargo de Perito Odontolegista e de Perito Criminal (quando realizada prova específica na área de Odontologia). Foram analisadas 18 provas realizadas entre os anos 2003 e 2019, especificamente para o cargo de Perito Odontolegista e Perito Criminal (área: Odontologia), em território nacional. Um total de 776 questões da área específica de Odontologia Legal foram divididas em 13 classes: Antropologia Forense; Balística; Código de Ética Odontológica; Datiloscopia; Desastre em Massa; Documentos Odontolegais; Genética Forense; Lei 5081/1966; Marcas de Mordida; Peritos e Perícias; Reconstrução Facial Forense; Tanatologia Forense; e Traumatologia Forense. Verificou-se que os conteúdos de Antropologia Forense (187 questões) e de Peritos e Perícias (158 questões) foram os de maior prevalência, seguidos por Traumatologia Forense (108 questões) e Genética Forense (66 questões). Conteúdos como Datiloscopia (12 questões), Desastres em Massa (18 questões) e Reconstrução Facial Forense (7 questões) foram os menos explorados nos concursos. Conclui-se que o cirurgião-dentista que pretende se candidatar a carreira pericial que envolva Odontologia deve ter total conhecimento de todo o amplo espectro da Odontologia Legal e sua interface com as Ciências Forenses, mas conteúdos como Antropologia e Peritos e Perícias possuem predominância na distribuição das questões em concursos.
Forensic odontology is one branch of forensic science that plays a role in the process of individual identification. Cases that often require a review from the perspective of forensic odontology are bitemark cases. Bitemark cases are often found in acts of violence or sexual violence, both to the victim and to the suspect. However, today bitemark analysis often experiences problems due to the many distortions that can occur. For this reason, it is important to know the pathobiology of bitemark in the healing process because by doing this analysis, it can be estimated when the bitemark is carried out, so that it can lead to an adequate identification process. This manuscript is a preliminary text for research on the pathobiology of post-bite tissue carried out.
Attorneys should reconceptualize the individual jurors' voir dire when a case involves the presentation of scientific evidence. One of the attorney's objectives must be encouraging the jury's acceptance of scientific concepts and the scientific method as applied to forensic science. Although each case is decided based upon its facts and circumstances, the laws of nature and practice of good science are still applicable to the case. Scientific evidence is derived from a process governed by the scientific method. Forensic science is the application of science to law. Law enforcement agents extensively rely upon evidence couched in what are presented as scientific principles and technology in criminal prosecutions. All cases involving criminal charges generally entail some aspect of scientific evidence and forensic science. The discipline of criminalistics utilizes familiar laboratory techniques and procedures to solve crime but does not always do so scientifically. Forensic science is applicable to civil cases in certain instances. Forensic science is the most persuasive of all evidence. Jurors must be prepared to treat it as science and be given basic scientific tools to evaluate it by the attorneys in the case.
Among the causes of the current sense that the forensic identification disciplines are ‘under siege’ are conceptual difficulties in these disciplines. Forensic identification disciplines either claim to achieve or strive to achieve conclusions of ‘individualization’, the reduction of the donor pool to a single source. They tend to support such claims by reference to the supposed ‘uniqueness’ of their objects of analysis. Both these notions remain extremely salient among practitioners and courts. And yet, a broad consensus in the forensic literature holds that individualization is unachievable and uniqueness is largely irrelevant to supporting claims of individualization. Focusing on latent print evidence, this article provides a clear articulation of the need to make a clean break from both individualization and uniqueness as forensic concepts. It argues that trace evidence disciplines can live without these concepts, and it explores what defensible conclusions might look like and how they might be supported.