Greetings from   American Board of Forensic Odontology President Franklin D. Wright, DMD, D-ABFO

 

Bitemark Analysis- The Bad and The Good

 

Much has been written about bitemark analysis and the horrors that have occurred involving bitemark analysis gone terribly wrong.   There

fateful cases have ruined lives, stolen precious days of freedom from those who have been imprisoned and led to wrongful convictions and incarcerations. No words or apologies can begin to make amends nor is there any excuse for what has happened in ruining the lives of those affected.   These cases have certainly shown the worst that bitemark analysis can be.

This has led to bitemark analysis being painted with a pretty wide brush as being "…junk science…"- or worse- by its most verbal critics. It is at this point that I would respectfully disagree with the across the board vilification of bitemark analysis. Good bitemark evidence properly handled does have a place in the legal system and can aid our legal system in the search for truth.   To support my opinion, I offer the following thoughts.

In the most tragic bad cases involving bitemark analysis, let's look at the facts.   The original opinions rendered by the primary bitemark analysis investigator contributed significantly to the wrongful convictions. The associated bitemark evidence was, at some time, invariably sent to one or more diplomates of the ABFO for an independent review and analysis.   This independent analysis was able to show that the original opinion rendered by the primary investigator was flawed and unsupportable. Armed with the new independent opinions refuting the original bitemark analysis opinions (and sometimes with other new evidence), legal appeals were initiated and, after years in the appellate court system, the wrongful original convictions were properly overturned. Does this make things all better for the wrongly convicted? Absolutely not, to be sure. But it does support that bitemark analysis done properly works.   Without the peer review opinions refuting the original misguided opinions, the appeal process either wouldn't have happened at all or would likely been denied outright.  

That begs a question to those vocal critics who condemn bitemark analysis and the value of bitemark evidence:   If it should be disallowed as evidence in a legal proceeding, then how can they (those involved in the appeals process) use the peer review "counter" bitemark opinion to support their case that the original bitemark opinion was reckless and flawed? Either bitemark analysis is never good and should never be used or it has evidentiary value in a legal proceeding and can be used.   It can't be both ways.   I, for one, am growing tired of the constant (and unfair) bashing of bitemark analysis as being fatally flawed.

You see, the reality isn't that bitemark analysis doesn't work. The problem is some who are doing the bitemark analysis; their failure to recognize the errors of their ways, the biases they unknowingly introduce, their failure to follow the prescribed bitemark analysis guidelines, a lack of peer review,   a failure to understand the limitations of bitemark analysis, the failure to understand the biting dynamics involved in the biting and on and on.   Add to that the poor representation and legal processes ("faulty lawyering") that accompanies most, if not all,   cases involving faulty bitemark analysis and, to me at least, it becomes clear that it isn't bitemark analysis that has failed.   It's the people involved in the bitemark analysis and its subsequent introduction into the legal system that has failed.

How convenient it must be for the most vocal critics of bitemark analysis to fail to recognize the thousands of child abuse victims who can sleep without fear of being beaten and bitten again by mommy's boyfriend or the victims of violent sexual assault who can sleep with the security of knowing their attacker lives in prison!   They surely must never have seen the tears of relief and joy when a guilty verdict is rendered and that part of their violent past has ended in cases where bitemark analysis, as adjunctive evidence, contributed to rendering justice.   Good bitemark analysis in a closed population of suspected biters has helped put the lives of these innocent victims of violence back on track toward being productive and secure members of society.   It's time that this acknowledgment be

made by those who search to find only the tragically awful faulty bitemark cases.

I do not mean in any way to minimize the ruination of the innocent who have been wrongly imprisoned because of bad bitemark analysis. As I said before there can be no justification for how those terrible cases happened and I offer no excuses. In those cases,   the bitemark analysis failed and was responsible for taking the most basic human right away- that of the freedom to live as one wishes.   And, sadly, nothing can be done to return those many long painful days without this freedom.   It cannot get worse than wrongful incarceration. It is these cases that have proven so valuable to scientific evidence gatekeepers such as the Innocence Project.   I am thankful for all the innocent that have been represented by these groups in getting the wrongful convictions overturned.   And I am equally thankful that the diplomates of the ABFO were able to assist in correcting the miscarriage of justice in the cases involving bitemark analysis gone wrong.

My reason for writing

to show the "other" side of bitemark analysis. The side of the scientific investigation that, when properly done, significantly contributes to legal proceedings in the search for truth.   All I ask is that the examination of bitemark analysis cases be fair and balanced.   To those who are the public face of all that is wrong with bitemark analysis, I ask you to investigate the cases where bitemark analysis positively contributed in a legal proceeding with the same energy that has been spent publically murdering bitemark analysis as always being wrong or bad.   You will find that these cases exponentially outnumber the most devastatingly poorly done tragic cases that seem to be the only ones making headlines.   You have every right to make the most public presentation for cases where bitemark analysis abjectly fails and you should do so.   But you also have a responsibility to report on the many cases where bitemark analysis worked and was properly applied. To do otherwise questions the credibility of those who are most critical of bitemark analysis.