Bite Marks Weaknesses

According to the Federal Bureau of Investigations (1991), most of the victims found in Dahmer’s apartment were identified through fingerprint, DNA, and dental analysis (FBI, 1991). Medical Examiner, Jeffrey Jentzen visited the scene while officers and the forensic teams photographed, documented, and collected the evidence. Throughout the ordeal, Jenzen continued to work with the federal Bureau of Instigations laboratory to identify and examine the remains of the victims (IFC Films, 2014). The laboratory specialists on the case conducted DNA profiles, tool marking analyses, fingerprinting, and photographic and computer examinations on the evidence submitted (Federal Bureau of Investigations, 2016). Forensic Odonatologist, Dr. L. Thomas Johnson aided in establishing positive identifications of nine of the individual’s by examining the victim’s teeth in comparison to their previous dental records (Bennett, 1993, p.

Forensic odontology is a discipline within forensic science that involves the management, examination, evaluation and presentation of dental evidence in criminal or civil proceedings (1). The main goal of forensic dentists/odontologists is to identify humans (1, 3). Forensic dentists have many methods that are used for dental identification. Some of these methods include bite mark analysis, labeling of dental prosthesis (dentures), rugoscopy (palatal rugae which are located on the roof of the mouth), and cheiloscopy (lip prints) (1). This paper will focus on the process that forensic dentists take to identify humans using teeth, how forensic dentists conduct bite mark comparisons, the methods/techniques that are used to do these

Forensic science has become the greatest collective method for intelligence gathering of human identifiers. The forensic sciences are used around the world to resolve civil disputes, to justly the enforcement of criminal laws and government regulations, and to protect public health. Over the years, judges have trusted forensic methods without a second thought. DNA analysis is the most reliable method that forensic has, but how reliable is it? (Jonathan Jones, pbs). According to a group called The Innocence Project, “Misapplication of forensic science is the second most common contributing factor to wrongful convictions, found in nearly half (46%) of DNA exoneration cases” (Innocence project).

In other words, dental records are compared to teeth found to get a positive identification made. Dental records can find the age and many other biological features. In the text it states,”After that comes establishing a positive identification. The most common is dental records because almost all of us have been to a dentist and have had X-rays of our mouths.” This shows in cases where teeth are found the most common way forensic scientists use them is to establish an identity and biological profile.With this in mind, the text also states,”....because almost all of have been to a dentist and have X-rays of our mouths. But also DNA is important.” This shows that teeth help victim identification through data analysis. Lastly, anthropologist work with odontologist to help identify a

It has been shown that the skull has the second greatest degree of sexual dimorphism with reported accuracies for sex determination as high as 77% (Stewart, 1979), 80-90% (Hanihara, 1959; Krogman, 1962; Cox and Mays, 2000) and even >95% (Baughan and Demirjian, 1978; Briggs, 1998; Franklin, Freedman and Milne, 2005; Kimmerle, Ross and Slice, 2008). However, it is thought that novice forensic anthropologists might report lower accuracies than these since, for example Stewart (1979) and Krogman (1962) had highly experienced participants analysing the skeletal remains. Moreover, some disagree that the skull is the second most sexually dimorphic and argue that certain postcranial measurements for example of the long bones, fare

"Bite mark evidence is the poster child of unreliable forensic science," said Chris Fabricant, director of strategic litigation at the New York-based Innocence Project, which helps wrongfully convicted inmates win freedom through DNA testing (Innocence Project, 2013, par. 3). Supporters of bite mark analysis argue it has helped convict child murderers and other notorious criminals, including serial killer Ted Bundy (Giannelli, 1996). Some arguing for the credibility of bite mark evidence contend that problems that have arisen are not about the method, but about the qualifications of those testifying.

The practical aims to establish a minimum number of individuals at the crime scene, a biological profile for each victim and the possible cause of death to these victims. In order to achieve this a number of anthropometric procedures must take place. Firstly, an examination of which bones were present and their anatomical position using a Skeletal Recording Form. Following the examination, a detailed written description of each bone was produced. A broad range of

Since 1692, bite marks has been used as evidence in courts. Throughout the years, bitemarks has been introduced to many criminal prosecutions and has been used as primary evidence to prosecute many individuals, however, in recent years, the use of bite marks as evidence raises a controversial topic of whether it is accurate and reliable. Although, the use of bite marks as evidence has rightfully convicted many individuals such as Ted Bundy, there are also many cases where individuals are wrongfully convicted. A number of exonerations have also occurred due to incorrect bite mark identification. The use of bite mark as evidence should not be used in courts as there are multiple factors that can provide inaccurate results.

Another common method for identifying dead bodies is dental comparison. This method is especially valuable for decedents who are not visually identifiable and are not able to be identified by fingerprint comparison. Like fingerprint comparison, dental identification requires a pre-existing dental records (ante-mortem record) [44]. If these records are accessible for comparison, a positive identity can be set up, as distinctive configurations of the bony structures of the jaw, roots of the teeth and adjacent sinuses frequently exist and are unique for every individual [45].

It is assumed that everyone’s dentitions are unique to everyone. Forensic Odontology consists of applying dental knowledge to criminal and civil law cases, in identifying a potential suspect whose dentitions were left on a victim, deceased or alive through a bite mark. Human identification in forensic odontology consists of identifying a deceased victim through dental records and DNA from teeth that were possibly found at a possible crime scene. The teeth are then compared to dental data for a possible match of who’s identity the teeth may belong to (Franco, 2015). Many times, the use of Forensic Odontology identification is useful for identification purposes of those victims who suffered death due to a natural disaster. Human bite marks can be found on the skin of a living or deceased victim, adult or child, victim or

There are varying opinions regarding the usefulness and validity of facial reconstruction as a forensic method of identification. An overwhelming amount of research claims that facial reconstruction is not an effective forensic technique. To follow the chronological order of the paper, problems arising with facial reconstruction will be outlined. In the beginning of facial reconstruction techniques, cadavers examined for determining reference points for soft tissue depths on the face (Nelson, L.A. & Michael, S.D., 1998). It is now understood that decomposition of the human body begins as soon as the individual dies, in normal environmental and health circumstances (Goff, M. L., 2009). Therefore, it has been claimed that cadaver related references are inconsistent and unreliable due to post-mortem changes in facial structure, producing a non-representative image of the person and/or inconsistent measurements when compared to in vivo results (Wilkinson et al., 2006). This issue has largely been overcome by the use of in vivo measurement techniques (Nelson, L.A. & Michael, S.D., 1998). These in vivo techniques also incur their own issues.

In forensic contexts, there are numerous determining factors that aid accurate identification of skeletal remains of unknown individuals. Most notable are estimations of age, sex, ancestry and stature. While each area contains extensive research, due to poor bone condition or incomplete human skeletal remains following disaster or crime, accurate stature estimation is becoming increasingly important in forensic anthropology (Macaluso 2015, p. 239; İşcan 2005). Moreover, due to significant variation in stature across different populations, it has been suggested that more accurate techniques for estimating stature across various populations are needed (İşcan 2005, p. 107). Although there are numerous studies on effective stature estimation in specific populations, no such studies involving innominate measurements had been made, despite its potential utility in

Accidents involving the heat action as burns, explosions, automobilist accidents, aircraft falls and others are frequent every day. The fatal victims from those episodes might be totally or partially carbonized and usually in these cases, the human identification processes become a challenge for the forensic teams1. Facing the poor conservation state and the incomplete presence of tissues lasting from the carbonization, many times Forensic Odontology can be the best identification method or it can even be the only susceptible for analyses because the teeth are the most resistant to heat tissues of the body 2, 3. This way they can be shown in better preserved conditions than other body tissues4. Moreover, it can provide a work time and material

Focusing on some of the specific sciences involved with Criminalistics, Odontology is a topic that warrants mentioning. Forensic Odontology is the handling examination and evaluation of dental evidence, which is presented in interest of justice (Haqh, Poonam, M, & Doddamani, 2016). Despite all of the advancements made in modern technology, medical breakthroughs, crime still persists in virtually every aspects of our lives. These heinous activities that shatter the lives of victims, their friends and families and occur every day. Little can be done to repair such damage once inflicted. So the detention and subsequent prosecution of the perpetrator(s) who commit these acts is essential to maintaining society. Through the field of forensic odontology,

More than one hundred thirty-eight years have gone subsequent to the anatomist Jeffries Wyman was called into court to help distinguish skeletal remains in Massachusetts. Today, the forensic anthropology and other fields of forensic medicine have made experts who now work together in resolving cases [26].