Bowers C Michael
School of Dentistry, University of Southern California, 2284 South Victoria Avenue, Suite 1-G, Ventura, CA 93003, USA.
Forensic Sci Int. 2006 May 15;159 Suppl 1:S104-9. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2006.02.032. Epub 2006 Apr 4.
The dental literature concerning bitemark methodology is surprisingly thin and sorely lacking in rigorous scientific testing. Contra to this fact, the bitemark legal caselaw is surprisingly strong and is used as a substitute for reliability testing of bite mark identification. In short, the Judiciary and the Prosecutors have loved forensic odontologists. This paper will focus on the author's participation as a Defense expert over the last seven years in over 50 bitemark prosecutions and judicial appeals. This sampling will act as an anecdotal survey of actual bitemark evidence. Certain trends regarding methods and reliability issues of odontologists will be discussed. Several of these cases have been later judicially overturned due to DNA analyses after the defendants were originally convicted. These diagnostic misadventures are being vocally discussed in the US media by news and legal investigators who are asking hard questions. The forensic dentistry community, however, is curiously silent. What actions are necessary by the profession to improve this assault on the 52-year tradition of bite mark identifications in the United States?
关于咬痕鉴定方法的牙科文献出奇地匮乏，且严重缺乏严格的科学测试。与这一事实相悖的是，咬痕相关的法律判例却出奇地有力，并被用作咬痕鉴定可靠性测试的替代品。简而言之，司法机构和检察官一直青睐法医牙科学专家。本文将聚焦作者在过去七年中作为辩方专家参与的50多起咬痕相关诉讼和司法上诉案件。这个样本将作为对实际咬痕证据的轶事性调查。将讨论有关牙科学专家方法和可靠性问题的某些趋势。其中一些案件在被告最初被定罪后，由于DNA分析，后来被司法推翻。新闻和法律调查人员在美国媒体上大声讨论这些诊断失误，他们提出了尖锐的问题。然而，法医牙科学界却出奇地沉默。该行业需要采取哪些行动来改善对美国52年咬痕鉴定传统的这种冲击？
