The individuality and accuracy of bite mark evidence has recently been called into question. Forensic scientists have long included bite mark analysis in their arsenal of tools to connect a suspect with a crime, but a recent opinion published by the Texas Forensic Science Commission argues that bite mark evidence should be barred from the courtroom.

Bite mark evidence can arise from any of a number of sources, such as an impression left in food found at the scene of the crime, a bruise or broken skin on the body of the victim, or indentations in the rim of a cup. Although impressions of a suspect's teeth have been compared against these types of evidence in courtrooms since 1870, there is still no scientifically-validated method by which one unique bite mark may be linked with one unique person.

Current methods involve comparing a model of the suspect's teeth derived from a dental impression with the evidence, for example, marks left on the skin of the victim. These marks may be digitized and measured for distance canine-to-canine, for width of the incisors, or the rotational angle of any of the teeth. This is then digitally or manually compared against the model of the suspect's teeth.

Where the problem arises is how what constitutes a "match" is measured and evaluated. For example, in fingerprint analysis, matches are identified by comparing "loci of individuality" on a print. Fingerprints have highly recognizable, tightly-defined characteristics that differentiate them from one another, and are in fact more individual even than DNA evidence. Furthermore, these characteristics are easily and concretely transferred upon contact with a surface.

Tooth impressions have none of these attributes- the distance between teeth is not unique to each person, nor are the teeth dimensions themselves. The materials that teeth marks are most commonly left in (skin, food, and plastic) are also subject to distortion that may mask the actual measurements. DNA evidence has exonerated many people wrongfully convicted by bite mark evidence, and it is for this reason that the Texas Forensic Science Committee has called for its abandonment in most contexts.

The decision by the board is not legally binding, but is likely to be highly influential among the criminal justice communities throughout the US, and could be cited as evidence for lack of credibility when bite mark analysis is presented as evidence is the courtroom.

Disclaimer

The information contained in this, or any case study post in Incisor should never be considered a proper replacement for necessary training and/or education regarding adult oral conscious sedation. Regulations regarding sedation vary by state. This is an educational and informational piece. DOCS Education accepts no liability whatsoever for any damages resulting from any direct or indirect recipient's use of or failure to use any of the information contained herein. DOCS Education would be happy to answer any questions or concerns mailed to us at 106 Lenora Street, Seattle, WA 98121. Please print a copy of this posting and include it with your question or request.

issue_no
0
The information contained in this, or any case study post in Incisor, should never be considered a proper replacement for necessary training and/or education regarding adult oral conscious sedation. Regulations regarding sedation vary by state. This is an educational and informational piece. DOCS Education accepts no liability whatsoever for any damages resulting from any direct or indirect recipient's use of or failure to use any of the information contained herein. DOCS Education would be happy to answer any questions or concerns mailed to us at 3250 Airport Way S, Suite 701 | Seattle, WA 98134. Please print a copy of this posting and include it with your question or request.
DOCS Membership

Upcoming Events
Streaming
May 17- 18, 2024
Atlanta, GA skyline
GA
August 23- 24, 2024
Streaming
October 04- 05, 2024

More Articles