International E-publication: Publish Projects, Dissertation, Theses, Books, Souvenir, Conference Proceeding with ISBN.  International E-Bulletin: Information/News regarding: Academics and Research

Accuracy of bite mark analysis in solving criminal cases and reliability of dental evidence as a form of identification

Author Affiliations

  • 1Symbiosis Law School, Pune, Maharashtra, India

Res. J. Forensic Sci., Volume 10, Issue (2), Pages 21-27, July,29 (2022)

Abstract

Bite mark analysis plays an important role in personal identification in forensic casework if bite marks are recorded in cases of violent crimes such as sexual offences, homicides and child abuse. Teeth, acting as tools leave recognizable marks depending on the tooth arrangement, malocclusion, habits, occupation, tooth fracture, and missing or extra teeth. Bitemark identification is based on the uniqueness of a dentition, that are been used to fit the bitemark to the suspect. Bite marks may be seen as a substitute to fingerprint and DNA identification for forensic examinations. The present review describes the classification, characteristics, mechanism of production, and appearance of bite mark injuries, collection of evidence and comparison techniques of the bite marks. Some forensic sciences, especially those relying on pattern matching, have been progressively thought to show deficiency in scientific foundation required to rationalize continuing admission as trial evidence. This scrutiny goes for bitemark identification as well, as a number of DNA exonerations have happened in the recent past for individuals who had been convicted based on erroneous bitemark identifications leading to intense scientific and legal scrutiny. The popularity and the decline since in demand for bitemark identification evidence has broader implications. It has highlighted the weak scientific culture of forensic science and the challenges faced by the courts and legislators in evaluating and responding to unreliable and unscientific evidence. Forensic odontology is a branch that connects dentistry and the legal profession. Dentists play an important role in various aspects of the identification of persons in various forensic circumstances. The dental record is a legal document possessed by the dentist consisting of documents related to the history of present illness, clinical examination, diagnosis, treatment, management, and the prognosis, it contains subjective and objective information about the patient. It is a well-known fact that the dental structures are the hardest and most protected structures in our body. The dental structure can battle decomposition and high-temperatures and they are the last ones to dis-integrate following demise. The foundation of dental identification is based on the fact that no two oral cavities can be a like, and each set of teeth is unique to the individual. Dental features such as tooth morphology, variations in size and shape, restorations, pathologies, missing tooth, wear patterns, crowding of the teeth, colour and position of the tooth, rotations and other irregular dental-anomalies gives each person a unique identification. When there are no ante-mortem dental records for comparison, the set of teeth may be useful for determination of sex, age, habits, race, ethnicity, occupations, and so on; that might give indication of involvement of the individual in a criminal act involving bite mark evidence.

References

  1. People v. Marx (1975)., 54 Cal. App., 3d 100.
  2. Saks, M.J, Albright, T, Bohan T.L, Bierer, B.E, Bowers, C.M, Bush, M.A, Bush, P.J, Casadevall, A, Cole, S.A, Denton, M.B, Diamond, S.S and all. (2016)., Forensic bitemark identification: weak foundations, exaggerated claims., Journal of Law and Bioscience, 3(3), 538-575.
  3. People v. Milone (1976)., 43 III. App. 3d 385.,
  4. Ege v. Yukins (2005)., 380 F. Supp. 2d 852.,
  5. Souviron, R. and Haller, L. (2017)., Bite mark evidence: bite mark analysis is not the same as bite mark comparison or matching or identification., Journal of Law and the Biosciences, 4(3). https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsx026
  6. Doyle v. State (1954)., 263 S.W.2d 779.,
  7. Mukesh v. State (2017)., 6 SCC 1., NCT of Delhi.
  8. K.S. Narayan Reddy (2010)., Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology., Law, Practice and Procedure, 268, 3rd Ed., 2010.
  9. State v. Ram Singh (2013)., SCC 114.,
  10. Mac Donald, D. G. (1974)., Bite mark recognition and interpretation., Journal of the Forensic Science Society, 14(3), 229-233.
  11. Krishan, K, Kanchan, T, and Garg and A.K. (2015)., Dental Evidence in Forensic Identification – An overview, Methodology and Present Status., The open dentistry journal, 9, 250.
  12. Shanbhag, V. K. L. (2016)., Significance of dental records in personal identification in forensic sciences., Journal of Forensic Science and Medicine, 2(1), 39.
  13. Disaster Victim Identification (DVI) Guide (2009)., Interpol 2009.,
  14. Krishan, K, Tanuj, K and Arun K.G. (2015)., Dental Evidence in Forensic Identification – An Overview, Methodology and Present Status., Open Dental Journal, 9, 250–256.
  15. Kaur, S, Krishan, K.P, Chatterjee P.M and Kanchan, T. (2013)., Analysis and Identification of Bite Marks in Forensic Casework., Department of Forensic Medicine, Kasturba Medical College, 3, 500.
  16. Shanbhag, VL. (2016)., Central identication agency to expedite the identication process., Journal of Forensic Science and Medicine, 2(43). https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/276083482_Significance_of_Dental_Records_in_Personal_Identification_in_Forensic_Sciences
  17. Gopal, K.S and Anusha, A.V. (2018)., Evaluation of accuracy of human bite marks on skin and an inanimate object: A forensic-based cross-sectional study., International Journal of Forensic Odontology. http://www.ijofo.org/text.asp?2018/3/1/2/234748