THE CHALLENGES TO THE FORENSIC ANALYSIS OF HUMAN BITE MARKS IN SKIN AND COMPARISON WITH TEETH
Main Article Content
Abstract
The lack of scientific evidence supporting the analysis of human bite marks in skin and comparison with teeth is well-recognised. The enduring controversy surrounding bite mark analysis and comparison needs to be resolved in the interests of science and justice. The presentation of bite mark evidence in criminal cases in the United States of America provides an opportunity to study the challenges to the forensic techniques of analysis and comparison. Study of the current scientific evidence demonstrates that distortion and cognitive bias are significant factors in the analysis and comparison techniques. A rationale for the forensic analysis of human bite marks in skin and comparison with teeth is proposed based on the current evidence on distortion and cognitive bias. The limitations of the forensic techniques are highlighted.
Keywords:
Bite mark analysis and comparison, Distortion, Cognitive bias
Article Details
How to Cite
SHEASBY, Douglas.
THE CHALLENGES TO THE FORENSIC ANALYSIS OF HUMAN BITE MARKS IN SKIN AND COMPARISON WITH TEETH.
Medical Research Archives, [S.l.], v. 11, n. 7.2, july 2023.
ISSN 2375-1924.
Available at: <https://esmed.org/MRA/mra/article/view/4142>. Date accessed: 21 nov. 2024.
doi: https://doi.org/10.18103/mra.v11i7.2.4142.
Section
Research Articles
The Medical Research Archives grants authors the right to publish and reproduce the unrevised contribution in whole or in part at any time and in any form for any scholarly non-commercial purpose with the condition that all publications of the contribution include a full citation to the journal as published by the Medical Research Archives.
References
1. National Academy of Sciences. Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. 2009.
2. Report to the President. Forensic Science in Criminal Courts: Ensuring Scientific Validity of Feature-Comparison Methods. Washington, DC. 2016.
3. Doyle v. State, 159 Tex. C.R. 310, 263 S.W.2d 779. 1954.
4. Hale A. Admissibility of bite mark evidence. Southern California Law Review, 51, 309-334. 1978.
5. Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013, 1014 (D.C. Cir.). 1923.
6. Whatmough LN, Nuckles DB. Bite mark evidence: increasing acceptance with a qualified expert witness. Legal Medicine, 49-78. 1992.
7. Neufeld PJ, Colman N. When science takes the witness stand. Scientific American, 262, 18-25. 1990.
8. California v. Kelly, 17 Cal. 3d 24. 1976.
9. Beckstead JW, Rawson RD, Giles WS. Review of bite mark evidence. Journal of the American Dental Association, 99, 69-74. 1979.
10. Farrell WL, Rawson RD, Steffens RS, Stephens D. Computerised axial tomography as an aid in bite mark analysis: a case report. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 32, 266-272. 1987.
11. Levine LJ. Outline of Forensic Dentistry: Bite mark evidence. Year Book Medical Publishers, Inc., Chicago. 1982.
12. Zarkowski P. Bite mark evidence: its worth in the eyes of the expert. Journal of Law and Ethics in Dentistry, 1, 47-57. 1988.
13. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579. 1993.
14. Bowers CM. Problem-based analysis of bitemark misidentifications: the role of DNA. Forensic Science International, 159, 104-109. 2006.
15. Clement JG, Blackwell SA. Is current bite mark analysis a misnomer? Forensic Science International, 201, 33-37. 2010.
16. Public Prosecutor v. Torgersen. Oslo, Norway. 1958.
17. Aksu MN, Gobetti JP. The past and present legal weight of bite marks as evidence. American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology, 17, 136-140. 1996.
18. Saferstein R. Criminalistics – an introduction to forensic science. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 1995.
19. Kieser JA, Bernal V, Waddell JN, Raju S. The uniqueness of the human anterior dentition: a geometric morphometric analysis. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 52, 671-677. 2007.
20. Sheasby DR, MacDonald DG. A forensic classification of distortion in human bite marks. Forensic Science International, 122, 75-78. 2001.
21. Barbanel JC, Evans JH. Bite marks in skin – mechanical factors. Journal of the Forensic Science Society, 14, 235-238. 1974.
22. Rawson RD, Brooks S. Classification of human breast morphology important to bite mark investigation. American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology, 5, 19-24. 1984.
23. Rawson RD. A method of classification and analysis of distorted patterns in human bite marks. American Academy of Forensic Sciences, abstracts p 65. 1982.
24. Whittaker DK, MacDonald DG. A Colour Atlas of Forensic Dentistry: Bite marks in flesh. Wolfe Medical Publications Ltd., London. 1989.
25. DeVore DT. Bite marks for identification? – a preliminary report. Medicine, Science and the Law, 11, 144-145. 1971.
26. Berstein ML. Two bite mark cases with inadequate scale references. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 30, 958-964. 1985.
27. Sheasby DR. Forensic Dentistry – Bite Mark Distortion. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. 1998.
28. Bush MA, Miller RG, Bush PJ, Dorion RBJ. Biomechanical factors in human dermal bitemarks in a cadaver model. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 54, 167-176. 2009.
29. Stimson P. Photographic distortion in bite marks. American Academy of Forensic Sciences, abstracts p 64. 1982.
30. Rawson RD, Vale GL, Herschaft EE, Sperber ND, Dowell S. Analysis of photographic distortion in bite marks: a report of the Bite Mark Guidelines Committee. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 31, 1261-1268. 1986.
31. Levine LJ. Bite mark evidence. Dental Clinics of North America, 21, 145-158. 1977.
32. Bush MA, Bush PJ, Sheets HD. A study of multiple bitemarks inflicted in human skin by a single dentition using geometric morphometric analysis. Forensic Science International, 211, 1-8. 2011.
33. Holtkotter H, Sheets HD, Bush PJ, Bush MA. Effect of systematic dental shape modification in bitemarks. Forensic Science International, 228, 61-69. 2013.
34. Forensic Science Regulator. Guidance: Cognitive bias effects relevant to forensic science examinations. FSR-G-217, Issue 2. 2020.
35. Duguid R, McKay GS. Bite length measurements and tooth-to-arch relationships obtained from dental casts using an X,Y-digitiser and computer. Journal of the Forensic Science Society, 21, 211-223. 1981.
36. Avon SL, Victor C, Mayhall JT, Wood RE. Error rates in bite mark analysis in an in vivo animal model. Forensic Science International, 201, 45-55. 2010.
37. Sunde N, Dror IE. A hierarchy of expert performance (HEP) applied to digital forensics: Reliability and biasability in digital forensics decision making. Forensic Science International: Digital Investigation, 37. 2021.
38. Christensen AM, Crowder CM, Ousley SD, Houck MM. Error and its meaning in forensic science. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 59, 123-126. 2014.
39. Page M, Taylor J, Blenkin M. Context Effects and Observer Bias – Implications for Forensic Odontology. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 57, 108-112. 2012.
40. Osborne NKP, Woods S, Kieser J, Zajac R. Does contextual information bias bitemark comparisons? Science and Justice, 54, 267-273. 2014.
41. Kassin SM, Dror IE, Kukucka J. The forensic confirmation bias: Problems, perspectives and proposed solutions. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 2, 42-52. 2013.
42. Dror IE, Charlton D, Peron A. Contextual information renders experts vulnerable to making erroneous identifications. Forensic Science International, 156, 174-178. 2006.
43. Dror IE, Charlton D. Why experts make errors. Journal of Forensic Identification, 56, 600-616. 2006.
44. Dror IE, Rosenthal R. Meta-analytically quantifying the reliability and biasability of forensic experts. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 53, 900-903. 2008.
45. Dror IE, Cole SA. The vision in blind justice: Expert perception, judgment and visual cognition in forensic pattern recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 17, 161-167. 2010.
46. Dror IE, Hampikian G. Subjectivity and bias in forensic DNA mixture interpretation. Science and Justice, 51, 204-208. 2011.
47. Dror IE, Kukucka J. Linear Sequential Unmasking-Expanded (LSU-E): A general approach for improving decision making as well as minimising noise and bias. Forensic Science International: Synergy, 3. 2021.
48. Krane D, Ford S, Jason J, Gilder R, Inman K, Jamieson A, Koppl R, Kornfield I, Risinger D, Rudin N, Taylor M, Thompson W. Sequential unmasking: a means of minimising observer effects in forensic DNA interpretation. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 53, 1006-1107. 2008.
49. Dror IE, Thompson WC, Meissner CA, Kornfield I, Krane D, Saks M, Risinger M. Letter to the Editor. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 60, 1111-1112. 2015.
50. Miller RG, Bush PJ, Dorion RBJ, Bush MA. Uniqueness of the dentition as impressed in human skin: a cadaver model. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 54, 909-914. 2009.
51. Bush MA, Bush PJ, Sheets HD. Statistical Evidence for the Similarity of the Human Dentition. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 56, 118-123. 2011
2. Report to the President. Forensic Science in Criminal Courts: Ensuring Scientific Validity of Feature-Comparison Methods. Washington, DC. 2016.
3. Doyle v. State, 159 Tex. C.R. 310, 263 S.W.2d 779. 1954.
4. Hale A. Admissibility of bite mark evidence. Southern California Law Review, 51, 309-334. 1978.
5. Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013, 1014 (D.C. Cir.). 1923.
6. Whatmough LN, Nuckles DB. Bite mark evidence: increasing acceptance with a qualified expert witness. Legal Medicine, 49-78. 1992.
7. Neufeld PJ, Colman N. When science takes the witness stand. Scientific American, 262, 18-25. 1990.
8. California v. Kelly, 17 Cal. 3d 24. 1976.
9. Beckstead JW, Rawson RD, Giles WS. Review of bite mark evidence. Journal of the American Dental Association, 99, 69-74. 1979.
10. Farrell WL, Rawson RD, Steffens RS, Stephens D. Computerised axial tomography as an aid in bite mark analysis: a case report. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 32, 266-272. 1987.
11. Levine LJ. Outline of Forensic Dentistry: Bite mark evidence. Year Book Medical Publishers, Inc., Chicago. 1982.
12. Zarkowski P. Bite mark evidence: its worth in the eyes of the expert. Journal of Law and Ethics in Dentistry, 1, 47-57. 1988.
13. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579. 1993.
14. Bowers CM. Problem-based analysis of bitemark misidentifications: the role of DNA. Forensic Science International, 159, 104-109. 2006.
15. Clement JG, Blackwell SA. Is current bite mark analysis a misnomer? Forensic Science International, 201, 33-37. 2010.
16. Public Prosecutor v. Torgersen. Oslo, Norway. 1958.
17. Aksu MN, Gobetti JP. The past and present legal weight of bite marks as evidence. American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology, 17, 136-140. 1996.
18. Saferstein R. Criminalistics – an introduction to forensic science. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 1995.
19. Kieser JA, Bernal V, Waddell JN, Raju S. The uniqueness of the human anterior dentition: a geometric morphometric analysis. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 52, 671-677. 2007.
20. Sheasby DR, MacDonald DG. A forensic classification of distortion in human bite marks. Forensic Science International, 122, 75-78. 2001.
21. Barbanel JC, Evans JH. Bite marks in skin – mechanical factors. Journal of the Forensic Science Society, 14, 235-238. 1974.
22. Rawson RD, Brooks S. Classification of human breast morphology important to bite mark investigation. American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology, 5, 19-24. 1984.
23. Rawson RD. A method of classification and analysis of distorted patterns in human bite marks. American Academy of Forensic Sciences, abstracts p 65. 1982.
24. Whittaker DK, MacDonald DG. A Colour Atlas of Forensic Dentistry: Bite marks in flesh. Wolfe Medical Publications Ltd., London. 1989.
25. DeVore DT. Bite marks for identification? – a preliminary report. Medicine, Science and the Law, 11, 144-145. 1971.
26. Berstein ML. Two bite mark cases with inadequate scale references. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 30, 958-964. 1985.
27. Sheasby DR. Forensic Dentistry – Bite Mark Distortion. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. 1998.
28. Bush MA, Miller RG, Bush PJ, Dorion RBJ. Biomechanical factors in human dermal bitemarks in a cadaver model. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 54, 167-176. 2009.
29. Stimson P. Photographic distortion in bite marks. American Academy of Forensic Sciences, abstracts p 64. 1982.
30. Rawson RD, Vale GL, Herschaft EE, Sperber ND, Dowell S. Analysis of photographic distortion in bite marks: a report of the Bite Mark Guidelines Committee. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 31, 1261-1268. 1986.
31. Levine LJ. Bite mark evidence. Dental Clinics of North America, 21, 145-158. 1977.
32. Bush MA, Bush PJ, Sheets HD. A study of multiple bitemarks inflicted in human skin by a single dentition using geometric morphometric analysis. Forensic Science International, 211, 1-8. 2011.
33. Holtkotter H, Sheets HD, Bush PJ, Bush MA. Effect of systematic dental shape modification in bitemarks. Forensic Science International, 228, 61-69. 2013.
34. Forensic Science Regulator. Guidance: Cognitive bias effects relevant to forensic science examinations. FSR-G-217, Issue 2. 2020.
35. Duguid R, McKay GS. Bite length measurements and tooth-to-arch relationships obtained from dental casts using an X,Y-digitiser and computer. Journal of the Forensic Science Society, 21, 211-223. 1981.
36. Avon SL, Victor C, Mayhall JT, Wood RE. Error rates in bite mark analysis in an in vivo animal model. Forensic Science International, 201, 45-55. 2010.
37. Sunde N, Dror IE. A hierarchy of expert performance (HEP) applied to digital forensics: Reliability and biasability in digital forensics decision making. Forensic Science International: Digital Investigation, 37. 2021.
38. Christensen AM, Crowder CM, Ousley SD, Houck MM. Error and its meaning in forensic science. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 59, 123-126. 2014.
39. Page M, Taylor J, Blenkin M. Context Effects and Observer Bias – Implications for Forensic Odontology. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 57, 108-112. 2012.
40. Osborne NKP, Woods S, Kieser J, Zajac R. Does contextual information bias bitemark comparisons? Science and Justice, 54, 267-273. 2014.
41. Kassin SM, Dror IE, Kukucka J. The forensic confirmation bias: Problems, perspectives and proposed solutions. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 2, 42-52. 2013.
42. Dror IE, Charlton D, Peron A. Contextual information renders experts vulnerable to making erroneous identifications. Forensic Science International, 156, 174-178. 2006.
43. Dror IE, Charlton D. Why experts make errors. Journal of Forensic Identification, 56, 600-616. 2006.
44. Dror IE, Rosenthal R. Meta-analytically quantifying the reliability and biasability of forensic experts. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 53, 900-903. 2008.
45. Dror IE, Cole SA. The vision in blind justice: Expert perception, judgment and visual cognition in forensic pattern recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 17, 161-167. 2010.
46. Dror IE, Hampikian G. Subjectivity and bias in forensic DNA mixture interpretation. Science and Justice, 51, 204-208. 2011.
47. Dror IE, Kukucka J. Linear Sequential Unmasking-Expanded (LSU-E): A general approach for improving decision making as well as minimising noise and bias. Forensic Science International: Synergy, 3. 2021.
48. Krane D, Ford S, Jason J, Gilder R, Inman K, Jamieson A, Koppl R, Kornfield I, Risinger D, Rudin N, Taylor M, Thompson W. Sequential unmasking: a means of minimising observer effects in forensic DNA interpretation. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 53, 1006-1107. 2008.
49. Dror IE, Thompson WC, Meissner CA, Kornfield I, Krane D, Saks M, Risinger M. Letter to the Editor. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 60, 1111-1112. 2015.
50. Miller RG, Bush PJ, Dorion RBJ, Bush MA. Uniqueness of the dentition as impressed in human skin: a cadaver model. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 54, 909-914. 2009.
51. Bush MA, Bush PJ, Sheets HD. Statistical Evidence for the Similarity of the Human Dentition. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 56, 118-123. 2011