An evidence-based methodology for the analysis and comparison of human bite marks in skin with teeth

Main Article Content

Douglas R Sheasby, BDS, DDS, MFFLM

Abstract

The limited scientific evidence in the analysis and comparison of human bite marks in skin with teeth demonstrates that distortion and cognitive bias are significant factors. The manuscript examines the extensive scientific evidence in the forensic sciences that utilise the visual comparison of crime scene evidence with reference material and how this may be applied to bite mark analysis and comparison. Specifically, the manuscript considers how the effects of distortion and bias may be limited by applying techniques used in comparative forensic science. A feature based analysis and comparison methodology is described and proposed that relies on an evidence-based rationale for the management of distortion and bias. The concept of the forensic significance of a bite mark determining whether or not the mark may be reliably compared with teeth is noted. The limitations of bite mark analysis and comparison are indicated.

Keywords: Bite mark analysis and comparison, Methodology, Distortion, Bias

Article Details

How to Cite
SHEASBY, Douglas R. An evidence-based methodology for the analysis and comparison of human bite marks in skin with teeth. Medical Research Archives, [S.l.], v. 13, n. 1, jan. 2025. ISSN 2375-1924. Available at: <https://esmed.org/MRA/mra/article/view/6158>. Date accessed: 10 feb. 2025. doi: https://doi.org/10.18103/mra.v13i1.6158.
Section
Review Articles

References

1 Report to the President. Forensic Science in Criminal Courts: Ensuring Scientific Validity of Feature-Comparison Methods. Washington, DC. 2016.

2 Sheasby DR. The challenges to the forensic analysis of human bite marks in skin and comparison with teeth. Medical Research Archives, 11 (7.2), 1-13. 2023.

3 Hale A. Admissibility of bite mark evidence. Southern California Law Review, 51, 309-334. 1978.

4 MacFarlane TW, MacDonald DG, Sutherland DA. Statistical problems in dental identification. Journal of the Forensic Science Society, 14, 247-252. 1974.

5 Rawson RD, Ommen RK, Kinard G, Johnson J, Yfantis A. Statistical evidence for the individuality of the human dentition. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 29, 245-253. 1984.

6 Pretty IA, Sweet D. A paradigm shift in the analysis of bitemarks. Forensic Science International, 201, 38-44. 2010.

7 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.

8 Bush MA, Bush PJ, Sheets HD. Statistical evidence for the similarity of the human dentition. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 56, 118-123. 2011.

9 Franco A, Willems G, Souza PHC, Bekkering GE, Thevissen P. The uniqueness of the human dentition as forensic evidence: a systematic review on the technological methodology. International Journal of Legal Medicine, Published online. 2014.

10 Franco A, Willems G, Souza PHC, Coucke W, Thevissen P. Uniqueness of the anterior dentition three-dimensionally assessed for forensic bitemark analysis. Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine, 46, 58-65. 2017.

11 Sheasby DR, MacDonald DG. A forensic classification of distortion in human bite marks. Forensic Science International, 122, 75-78. 2001.

12 Barbanel JC, Evans JH. Bite marks in skin – mechanical factors. Journal of the Forensic Science Society, 14, 235-238. 1974.

13 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.

14 Rawson RD. A method of classification and analysis of distorted patterns in human bite marks. American Academy of Forensic Sciences, abstracts p 65. 1982.

15 Whittaker DK, MacDonald DG. A Colour Atlas of Forensic Dentistry: Bite marks in flesh. Wolfe Medical Publications Ltd., London. 1989.

16 DeVore DT. Bite marks for identification? – a preliminary report. Medicine, Science and the Law, 11, 144-145. 1971.

17 Berstein ML. Two bite mark cases with inadequate scale references. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 30, 958-964. 1985.

18 Sheasby DR. Forensic Dentistry – Bite Mark Distortion. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. 1998.

19 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.

20 Stimson P. Photographic distortion in bite marks. American Academy of Forensic Sciences, abstracts p 64. 1982.

21 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.

22 Forensic Science Regulator. Guidance: Cognitive bias effects relevant to forensic science examinations. FSR-G-217, Issue 2. 2020.

23 Levine LJ. Bite mark evidence. Dental Clinics of North America, 21, 145-158. 1977.

24 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.

25 Holtkotter H, Sheets HD, Bush PJ, Bush MA. Effect of systematic dental shape modification in bitemarks. Forensic Science International, 228, 61-69. 2013.

26 Whittaker DK. Some laboratory studies on the accuracy of bite mark comparison. International Dental Journal, 25, 166-171. 1975.

27 Rawson RD, Vale GL, Sperber ND, Herschaft EE, Yfantis A. Reliability of the scoring system of the American Board of Forensic Odontology for human bite marks. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 31, 1235-1260.1986.

28 Pretty IA, Sweet D. The scientific basis for human bitemark analyses – a critical review. Science and Justice, 41, 85-92. 2001.

29 Ström F. Investigation of bite-marks. Journal of Dental Research, 42, 312-316. 1963.

30 Keiser-Nielsen S. Forensic odontology – a survey. Presented at the FDI/ERO meeting, Vienna. 1968.

31 Aitken C, MacDonald DG. An application of discrete kernel methods to forensic odontology. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 28, 55-61. 1979.

32 American Board of Forensic Odontology, Inc. Guidelines for bite mark analysis. Journal of the American Dental Association, 112, 383-386. 1986.

33 Ligthelm AJ, de Wet FA. Recognition of bite marks: a preliminary report. Journal of Forensic Odontostomatology, 1, 19-26. 1983.

34 Bowers CM, Pretty IA. Expert disagreement in bitemark casework. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 54, 915-918. 2009.

35 Pretty IA. Development and validation of a human bitemark severity and significance scale. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 52, 687-691. 2007.

36 Clement JG, Blackwell SA. Is current bite mark analysis a misnomer? Forensic Science International, 201, 33-37. 2010.

37 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.

38 Dror IE, Charlton D, Peron A. Contextual information renders experts vulnerable to making erroneous identifications. Forensic Science International, 156, 174-178. 2006.

39 Dror IE, Charlton D. Why experts make errors. Journal of Forensic Identification, 56, 600-616. 2006.

40 Dror IE, Rosenthal R. Meta-analytically quantifying the reliability and biasability of forensic experts. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 53, 900-903. 2008.

41 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.

42 Dror IE, Hampikian G. Subjectivity and bias in forensic DNA mixture interpretation. Science and Justice, 51, 204-208. 2011.

43 Dror IE. Cognitive and human factors in expert decision making: six fallacies and the eight sources of bias. Analytical Chemistry, 92, 7998-8004. 2020.

44 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.

45 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.

46 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.

47 de Lange FP, Heilbron M, Kok P. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22, 764-779. 2018.

48 National Academy of Sciences. Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. 2009.

49 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.

50 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.

51 Christensen AM, Crowder CM, Ousley SD, Houck MM. Error and its meaning in forensic science. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 59, 123-126. 2014.

52 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.

53 Page M, Taylor J, Blenkin M. Context effects and observer bias – implications for forensic odontology. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 57, 108-112. 2012.

54 Osborne NKP, Woods S, Kieser J, Zajac R. Does contextual information bias bitemark comparisons? Science and Justice, 54, 267-273. 2014.

55 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.

56 van der Linden FPGM. Development of the Human Dentition. Quintessence Publishing Company Ltd., London. 2016.

57 Nordby JJ. Can we believe what we see, if we see what we believe? – expert disagreement. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 37, 1115-1124. 1992.