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.
Subject(s)
Bites, Human , Forensic Dentistry/legislation & jurisprudence , Forensic Dentistry/standards , Certification , Expert Testimony/legislation & jurisprudence , Forensic Dentistry/education , Guidelines as Topic , Humans , Professional Competence , Societies, Dental , United StatesSubject(s)
Forensic Dentistry/methods , Age Determination by Teeth , Bites, Human/diagnosis , California , Crime , DNA/analysis , Dental Records , Dentition , Disaster Victims , Forensic Anthropology/methods , Forms and Records Control , Humans , Radiography, Dental , Societies, Dental/organization & administration , United StatesABSTRACT
Over the years many methods have been proposed and presented for marking or "highlighting" the incisal edges of anterior teeth on a dental stone model -- one of the critical steps in production of transparent overlays for bitemark analysis. A method is presented here that is an extension and refinement of the "paint the edges" method shown at least as early as 1966 by Gustafson. This method uses "invisible ink" and ultraviolet illumination to produce a very high contrast image of the incisal edges of the teeth on the model. The advantages of this new method are that it is nondestructive, it does not leave visible marks on the models, operator subjectivity in selecting the portions of anterior teeth to be highlighted is reduced, and the author submits that this technique lends itself to easy construction of overlays using computer image-processing software such as Adobe Photoshop and ImageJ.
