Bite Mark Forensic Analysis

732 Words3 Pages

Is Bite Mark Analysis a Valid Measure of Evidence? The science of forensic analysis in criminal investigations has dramatically changed the landscape of criminal justice. Although useful in investigating crimes, many aspects of forensic science can easily be flawed, or are not precise enough to accurately determine guilt. Bite mark analysis is one such technique that falls into the troubling category (Innocence Project, 2007).
Proponents of taking bite samples from suspects and numerous photographs of the suspect’s mouth and the object that has been bitten, and comparing them for evidence of a match believe that this is a valid aspect of forensic science. However, “bite mark analysis is particularly troubling because of the almost …show more content…

Therefore, part of the investigative process will involve following the trail of dental records as far as possible.”
Conceptualization and Validity Observing and using bite marks as evidence, on face value, is a sound concept, and a simple one that is easily explained; if something or someone is bitten, it should be easy enough to match the bite with dental records and photos of the suspect, since humans have unique bite patterns.
But the measurement of bite mark comparison was not conceptualized appropriately because the abstract theory of gauging guilt by measuring bite marks has not been translated into “testable hypotheses involving specific variables” (Bachman & Schutt, 2014). The Innocence Project
(2007) cites the only three studies that had been done (at that time) to determine whether bite mark analysis is reliable or valid. The studies all found false identification rates ranging from
11.9% to 91%, and cited several cases of suspects being falsely convicted and sentenced to prison – or death – based, at least partly, on bite mark analysis (Innocence Project, 2007). One of the cases is that of Ray Krone, who was convicted of murdering a Phoenix woman …show more content…

Finally, in 2002, DNA testing revealed that a convicted rapist was the real killer after his DNA was a match for the saliva and blood (Innocence Project, 2007). Krone was released from prison after spending 10 years behind bars on death row for a crime he did not commit. More recently, the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (2016), conducted a year-long study examining thousands of scientific journals, crime cases, and exonerations of criminals found guilty through bite mark analysis and determined that bite mark analysis relies on two fundamental premises that cannot be scientifically proven: that each individual has a unique bite mark unique as DNA, and that human skin or other malleable surfaces are adequate for recording and preserving the bite mark. The council concluded that
“Few empirical studies have been undertaken to study the ability of examiners to accurately identify the source of a bite mark. Among those studies that have been undertaken, the observed false positive rates were so high that the method is clearly scientifically unreliable at