Is It Likely That Bite Mark Analysis Will in the Future Meet the Criteria Necessary for Use in the Justice System?

Abstract

ABSTRACTBite mark analysis has created more divisiveness within forensic odontology than any other comparison procedure. For many years, odontologists have often taken polarizing positions related to the analysis of patterned injuries purported to be bite marks. There have also been opposing statements made by forensic odontologists relating to what value bite mark analysis has to the judicial system. Unfortunately, multiple individuals have been wrongfully convicted when bite mark analysis has been used to prosecute a person accused of serious crimes. It is not the purpose of this article to create more contention but is written to provide what I hope is a meaningful interpretation of the present status of bite mark analysis. It has been shown through meta-analyses and systematic reviews that bite mark analysis lacks the scientific rigor to be used in the judicial system. Consistent with the recommendations of several highly respected scientific organizations, it is presently my opinion that bite mark patterned injuries should not be used to state that a specific individual is the only person who could have bitten another person. Further, it is my opinion that because of the multitude of variables associated with biting activity and the lack of validity and precision presently shown to support bite mark analysis, it is unlikely that bite mark patterned injury analysis will in the future be useful to the judiciary.