Home / ABFO Diplomates / Long list of distinguished authors state bitemarks should not be used

Long list of distinguished authors state bitemarks should not be used

I think that its safe to say that 2017 may well be the last year that bitemarks are allowed in criminal trials in the United States.  With over four cases currently going through the courts as either Frye/Daubert hearings or full appeals – each of which features a bitemark (apparently) handled badly by ABFO diplomates.  The ABFO is divided more than ever – with some still hanging on desperately to the concept that BMs are safe, versus the more enlightened (or non flat earthers).  Both are appearing in Courts at present.

The paper’s abstract, which is not quiet as long as the list of authors!; states:

Several forensic sciences, especially of the pattern-matching kind, are increasingly seen to lack the scientific foundation needed to justify continuing admission as trial evidence. Indeed, several have been abolished in the recent past. A likely next candidate for elimination is bitemark identification. A number of DNA exonerations have occurred in recent years for individuals convicted based on erroneous bitemark identifications. Intense scientific and legal scrutiny has resulted. An important National Academies review found little scientific support for the field. The Texas Forensic Science Commission recently recommended a moratorium on the admission of bitemark expert testimony.

The California SupremeCourt has a case before it that could start a national dismantling of forensic odontology. This article describes the (legal) basis for the rise of bitemark identification and the (scientific) basis for its impending fall. The article explains the general logic of forensic identification, the claims of bitemark identification, and reviews relevant empirical research on bitemark identification—highlighting both the lack of research and the lack of support provided by what research does exist. The rise and possible fall of bitemark identification evidence has broader implications—highlighting the weak scientific culture of forensic science and the law’s difficulty in evaluating and responding to unreliable and unscientific evidence.


The paper is open source and you can download a copy here and read the article:

[gview file=”http://www.forensicdentistryonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/J-Law-Biosci-2016-Saks-jlb-lsw045.pdf”]


About Odont1

Odont1 is a seasoned forensic dentist, researcher and educator with an interest in progressing the science of the discipline while retaining those elements that are evidence based and useful to the judicial system at any level.

Check Also

Forensic dentists claims bites by adults “more likely than not”.

We know that determining a bite is from an adult or a child can be …

Leave a Reply