Forensic bitemark identification: weak foundations, exaggerated claims

Area of Science:

• Forensic Science
• Forensic Odontology
• Legal Medicine

Background:

• Pattern-matching forensic sciences are increasingly scrutinized for scientific validity.
• Bitemark identification is a likely candidate for elimination from trial evidence.
• Recent DNA exonerations have been linked to erroneous bitemark identifications.

Purpose of the Study:

• To examine the legal basis for the rise of bitemark identification.
• To analyze the scientific basis for the decline of bitemark identification.
• To discuss the broader implications for forensic science and legal evidence evaluation.

Main Methods:

• Review of legal precedents and scientific literature.
• Analysis of empirical research on bitemark identification accuracy.
• Examination of reports from scientific and legal bodies.

Main Results:

• Limited scientific support exists for bitemark identification.
• Empirical research demonstrates a lack of validity and reliability.
• National Academies and state commissions recommend caution or moratoriums.

Conclusions:

• Bitemark identification lacks the scientific foundation for trial evidence.
• The scrutiny of bitemark identification highlights systemic issues in forensic science.
• The legal system struggles to evaluate and respond to unreliable scientific evidence.