Error rates in bite mark analysis in an in vivo animal model

Forensic odontology: Wrong convictions, "bad apples" and "the innocence files"

Forensic odontology (FO) provides expert testimony; however, new criticism has identified FO as one of the fields that must strengthen its scientific foundations. The recent Netflix documentary titled "The Innocence Files", featuring wrongful convictions, dedicates three of its nine episodes almost exclusively to bite mark identification (BMI), one of the most questioned tests performed by FO. Although most of the FO fields have an undoubted utility in forensic and juridical context, only BMI has been questioned in recent years; the derogatory expression "Junk science" is used continuously in the documentary almost as a synonym for FO. We present a scoping review of cases reported in the US National Registry of Exonerations in which FO was false or misleading forensic evidence (F/MFE) leading to wrongful convictions. Although in the 26 cases identified the only declared F/MFE was the BMI (excluding any other type of dental expertise), only in 2 cases (7.69%) was F/MFE the sole contributing factor, and in 4 cases (15.38%) there was F/MFE plus three additional factors. Official misconduct was detected in 19 cases (73.08%) and perjury or false accusation in 16 cases (61.54%). It has already been mentioned how dangerous it is to consider FO as synonymous with "bite mark identification", or even to publicly provide incorrect or decontextualized information. This review shows that erroneous convictions have been exclusively in the field of BMI, and that FO encompasses much more than just BMI. The relationship between the media and forensic sciences has been strained. The perspective of the new culture of risk management in forensics is also discussed.

Bite Mark Analysis in Foodstuffs and Inanimate Objects and the Underlying Proofs for Validity and Judicial Acceptance

Even though one of the first bite mark cases was Doyle v. State in 1954 (a bitten cheese case), the research has focused on bite marks inflicted in human skin. As published Papers, Case Reports, or Technical Notes can constitute precedents which are relied upon in making the legal arguments and a considerable amount of case law exists in this area, we present a systematic review on bite mark analysis in foodstuffs and inanimate objects and their underlying proofs for validity and judicial acceptance according to Daubert rulings. Results showed that there is vulnerability in these procedures, and it is essential to demand for focus scrutiny on the known error rates when such evidence is presented in trials. These kinds of bite marks are well documented; however, there has been little research in this field knowing that the protocols of analysis and comparison are the responsibility of the forensic odontologists.

The uniqueness of the human dentition as forensic evidence: a systematic review on the technological methodology

The uniqueness of human dentition is routinely approached as identification evidence in forensic odontology. Specifically in bitemark and human identification cases, positive identifications are obtained under the hypothesis that two individuals do not have the same dental features. The present study compiles methodological information from articles on the uniqueness of human dentition to support investigations into the mentioned hypothesis. In April 2014, three electronic library databases (SciELO®, MEDLINE®/PubMed®, and LILACS®) were systematically searched. In parallel, reference lists of relevant studies were also screened. From the obtained articles (n = 1235), 13 full-text articles were considered eligible. They were examined according to the studied parameters: the sample size, the number of examined teeth, the registration technique for data collection, the methods for data analysis, and the study outcomes. Six combinations of studied data were detected: (1) dental shape, size, angulation, and position (n = 1); (2) dental shape, size, and angulation (n = 4); (3) dental shape and size (n = 5); (4) dental angulation and position (n = 2); (5) dental shape and angulation (n = 1); and (6) dental shape (n = 1). The sample size ranged between 10 and 1099 human dentitions. Ten articles examined the six anterior teeth, while three articles examined more teeth. Four articles exclusively addressed three-dimensional (3D) data registration, while six articles used two-dimensional (2D) imaging. In three articles, both imaging registrations were combined. Most articles (n = 9) explored the data using landmark placement. The other articles (n = 4) comprised digital comparison of superimposed dental contours. Although there were large methodological variations within the investigated articles, the uniqueness of human dentition remains unproved.