Epidermis and Enamel: Insights Into Gnawing Criticisms of Human Bitemark Evidence.

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.

Bite-Mark and Pattern Injury Analysis: A Brief Status Overview.

Bite marks are one component of forensic investigation requiring subjective interpretation for determining unknown source evidence to a putative suspect. Recent scrutiny has lead to questions about the scientific validity of patterned evidence, bite-mark analysis in particular, and its role in judicial proceedings. This article discusses some issues that persist in forensic circles and the difficulties surrounding the field of bite-mark analysis that inherently must employ human subjectivity in its execution of duty.

Lessons learned from the WTC disaster: a first-person account.

Sept. 11, 2001, was a day of learning for the world. We learned oceans do not isolate the United States from acts of terrorism. Prior to hijackers flying commercial airplanes into the Pentagon and World Trade Center towers, forensic investigators had never dealt with a mass fatality incident of this magnitude on the mainland soil of the U.S. during non-wartime conditions. During the process of gearing up for the task of locating and identifying the victims, forensic dentists also learned a number of things. Established techniques for disaster management were tested to their extreme limits. Before and while this multi-functional effort was taking place, we familiarized ourselves with what techniques worked best under the immense pressure and tedious nature this job presented. Some of these accepted and now "tried and true" protocols are presented in this article.

The use of full spectrum digital photography for evidence collection and preservation in cases involving forensic odontology.

Photography often represents the best method to collect and preserve evidence in forensic cases. This is especially true in forensic odontology with cases involving dental identification, human abuse and, perhaps most significantly, bitemark cases. Basic visible light photography is adequate in most dental identification cases; however, full spectrum digital photography is best utilized to collect all available evidence in cases of human abuse and bitemarks. This paper will discuss the types of photographic evidence that should be collected with various forensic odontological cases and the specific techniques utilized in full spectrum forensic digital photography. The use of full spectrum photography captures the forensic injuries using special techniques recording the injuries in each of the four resultant events that occur when light strikes skin.