Is current bite mark analysis a misnomer?

Abstract

Four human-to-human bite mark cases in which forensic odontological opinion was found to be in error, or at best deeply divided between experts, are described. These are used to illustrate that there is a growing awareness on the part of the legal profession that bite mark opinions by experts may often be little more than that and that these opinions often cannot be substantiated given the paucity of rigorous scientific evaluation, and will therefore be increasingly challenged. This may not best serve justice and so it is argued that forensic odontology needs to bring more scientific rigour to the evaluation of bite marks. This may threaten to disenfranchise some of the current practitioners and there may be some resistance to change. Forensic odontology is not the only identification science facing such problems, but nevertheless a paradigm shift is predicted in the way bite mark evidence will have to be gathered and evaluated in the future. Some new scientific approaches are described that strive to unravel some of the most basic problems confronting our profession when we attempt to make morphometric comparisons between injuries and the dentition of the biter. A need to capture the actions and consequences of biting in 3D dimensions and simultaneously in real-time is proposed as a path of investigation highly likely to bring some clarity to a confused situation. There is also an urgent need for the ongoing controversy between some of our eminent peers relating to the assumed uniqueness, or otherwise, of the human anterior dentition to be resolved.