Forensic bitemark identification: weak foundations, exaggerated claims
View/ Open
Author
Saks, Michael J.
Albright, Thomas
Bohan, Thomas L.
Bowers, C. Michael
Bush, Mary A.
Bush, Peter J.
Casadevall, Arturo
Cole, Simon A.
Denton, M. Bonner
Diamond, Shari Seidman
Dioso-Villa, Rachel
Epstein, Jules
Faigman, David
Faigman, Lisa
Fienberg, Stephen E.
Garrett, Brandon L.
Giannelli, Paul C.
Greely, Henry T.
Imwinkelried, Edward
Jamieson, Allan
Kafadar, Karen
Kassirer, Jerome P.
Koehler, Jonathan ‘Jay’
Mnookin, Jennifer
Morrison, Alan B.
Murphy, Erin
Peerwani, Nizam
Peterson, Joseph L.
Risinger, D. Michael
Sensabaugh, George F.
Spiegelman, Clifford
Stern, Hal
Thompson, William C.
Wayman, James L.
Zabell, Sandy
Zumwalt, Ross E.
Note: Order does not necessarily reflect citation order of authors.
Published Version
https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsw045Metadata
Show full item recordCitation
Saks, M. J., T. Albright, T. L. Bohan, B. E. Bierer, C. M. Bowers, M. A. Bush, P. J. Bush, et al. 2016. “Forensic bitemark identification: weak foundations, exaggerated claims.” Journal of Law and the Biosciences 3 (3): 538-575. doi:10.1093/jlb/lsw045. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsw045.Abstract
Abstract Several forensic sciences, especially of the pattern-matching kind, are increasingly seen to lack the scientific foundation needed to justify continuing admission as trial evidence. Indeed, several have been abolished in the recent past. A likely next candidate for elimination is bitemark identification. A number of DNA exonerations have occurred in recent years for individuals convicted based on erroneous bitemark identifications. Intense scientific and legal scrutiny has resulted. An important National Academies review found little scientific support for the field. The Texas Forensic Science Commission recently recommended a moratorium on the admission of bitemark expert testimony. The California Supreme Court has a case before it that could start a national dismantling of forensic odontology. This article describes the (legal) basis for the rise of bitemark identification and the (scientific) basis for its impending fall. The article explains the general logic of forensic identification, the claims of bitemark identification, and reviews relevant empirical research on bitemark identification—highlighting both the lack of research and the lack of support provided by what research does exist. The rise and possible fall of bitemark identification evidence has broader implications—highlighting the weak scientific culture of forensic science and the law's difficulty in evaluating and responding to unreliable and unscientific evidence.Other Sources
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5570687/pdf/Terms of Use
This article is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of-use#LAACitable link to this page
http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:34375179
Collections
- HMS Scholarly Articles [17921]
Contact administrator regarding this item (to report mistakes or request changes)