Pretty I A, Sweet D
Department of Clinical Dental Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Liverpool, England.
J Forensic Sci. 2001 Sep;46(5):1152-8.
Boards and associations within forensic science have long been accepted as vehicles for the development and dissemination of protocols and recommendations for practice. Recent controversies surrounding bite mark analyses have brought the methods and practices of forensic dentists to the attention of both the courts and the media. In the mid-eighties the American Board of Forensic Odontology developed guidelines for bite mark analysis in response to unfavorable commentaries on the discipline by legal observers. The purpose of this study is to examine the adherence of board certified and noncertified forensic dentists to the guidelines for collection of evidence from bite mark suspects. A questionnaire was employed during an American Academy of Forensic Sciences meeting. Results showed that, in general, when the odontologists collected evidence they did adhere to the guidelines, although collection of salivary samples was not common. Of concern is the large number of odontologists who do not collect their own evidence from suspects. Police officers or other individuals often perform this task and therefore the guidelines must be disseminated to these groups to ensure that the maximum yield is obtained from bite mark evidence. A review of the materials used to collect evidence is also included with details of applications in forensic science.
长期以来，法医学领域的委员会和协会一直被视为制定和传播实践协议与建议的载体。近期围绕咬痕分析的争议已将法医牙医的方法和实践置于法庭和媒体的关注之下。在八十年代中期，美国法医牙科学会针对法律观察家对该学科的负面评论，制定了咬痕分析指南。本研究的目的是检验获得委员会认证和未获认证的法医牙医对从咬痕嫌疑人处收集证据的指南的遵循情况。在美国法医学学会会议期间使用了一份调查问卷。结果显示，总体而言，当牙科学家收集证据时，他们确实遵循了指南，尽管唾液样本的收集并不常见。令人担忧的是，有大量牙科学家并不从嫌疑人处自行收集证据。警官或其他人员经常执行这项任务，因此必须将指南传播给这些群体，以确保从咬痕证据中获取最大收益。还包括对用于收集证据的材料的综述以及在法医学中的应用细节。
