Bowers C Michael, Pretty Iain A
Forensic Dentist and Deputy Medical Examiner, Ventura County Medical Examiner's Office, CA, USA.
J Forensic Sci. 2009 Jul;54(4):915-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2009.01073.x. Epub 2009 May 26.
Bitemark cases continue to raise controversy due to the degree of expert disagreement which is frequently seen. Using a case mix of 49 bitemark cases from 2000 to 2007 each injury was independently assessed for its forensic significance using a previously described bitemark severity scale. Following the assessment, the mean value for the bites was categorized according to the crime type, the degree of expert agreement, and the judicial outcome. Results suggest that bitemarks found in child abuse cases have statistically significantly lower forensic value than those in other crime types, that bites where there is mutual agreement between experts will have higher forensic value than those where there is disagreement at trial, and that cases in which DNA has provided an exoneration will demonstrate similar quality to those where a conviction was secured. Forensic odontologists should carefully assess bitemark evidence and ensure that it meets certain minimums in relation to the presence of class and unique features before undertaking an analysis.
由于经常出现专家意见分歧的情况，咬痕案件一直存在争议。使用2000年至2007年的49个咬痕案件组合，利用先前描述的咬痕严重程度量表，对每一处损伤的法医意义进行独立评估。评估后，根据犯罪类型、专家共识程度和司法结果，对咬痕的平均值进行分类。结果表明，虐待儿童案件中的咬痕在统计学上的法医价值明显低于其他犯罪类型中的咬痕，专家意见一致的咬痕比审判中存在分歧的咬痕具有更高的法医价值，DNA提供无罪证据的案件与定罪的案件质量相似。法医牙科学者在进行分析之前，应仔细评估咬痕证据，并确保其在类别特征和独特特征方面符合某些最低要求。
