Weighing Bitemark Evidence: A Postmodern Perspective

Abstract

Forensic bitemark identification is a demanding area of odontological expertise that typically relies on a three-stage process consisting of a detailed examination of the bitemark, an examination and clinical evaluation of the suspect's dentition, occlusion, and temporomandibular joint, followed by the interpretation of the available evidence. Because the investigator faces a complex body of often incomplete or ambiguous data that has to be reconciled in order to arrive at a conclusion, uncertainty plays a large role in the process. This review evaluates modern bitemark analysis in the light of Daubert's criteria, with special reference to modern ideas about reasoning under uncertainty. It concludes that more than 150 years of developments in bitemark evidence still leaves us without some sort of consensual basis to decide whether or not bitemark evidence should be admitted. However, recent scientific attempts to introduce new bitemark techniques and also to evaluate the evidential reliability of bitemark evidence have offered exciting new perspectives on this debate.