University of Newcastle, School of Health Sciences, Australia.
Forensic Sci Int. 2012 Mar 10;216(1-3):82-7. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2011.08.023. Epub 2011 Sep 17.
Criticism of forensic science, particularly that of bitemark analysis, has become increasingly common in the last decade. Much of the criticism directed at forensic odontology cites cases where miscarriages of justice have occurred when erroneous, over-confident or even false bitemark evidence has been tendered by odontologists. Despite Australia's own experience with such cases in the past, it is postulated that this does not represent the true nature of bitemark analysis as practiced by odontologists today-at least in this country. A review of 119 cases from the last 10 years confirms that 'identification' of a suspect is rarely, if ever, offered, and that conclusions reached by odontologists with respect to bitemark analysis are generally conservative. However, the results of this study also indicate that in a small but significant proportion of cases, there is still some tendency to reach conclusions that could be considered over-confident when considering the overall quality of the physical evidence offered. It is suggested that odontologists should avoid making conclusive remarks regarding the origin of the mark, or the identification of a perpetrator, when such comments are realistically precluded, given the low evidentiary value of the mark itself.
在过去的十年中，法庭科学，特别是咬痕分析，受到了越来越多的批评。许多针对法医牙科学的批评都提到了这样的案例：当法医错误地、过于自信甚至虚假地提出咬痕证据时，就会出现司法误判。尽管澳大利亚过去也有类似的案例，但据推测，这并不能代表当今法医牙科学实践的真实性质——至少在这个国家是这样。对过去 10 年的 119 个案例进行审查后证实，很少（如果有的话）会提供对嫌疑人的“识别”，而且法医牙科学就咬痕分析得出的结论通常是保守的。然而，这项研究的结果也表明，在一小部分但意义重大的案例中，当考虑到所提供的物证的整体质量时，仍然存在一些过于自信的结论的倾向。有人认为，当这种评论实际上被排除在外时，鉴于痕迹本身的证据价值很低，法医牙科学家应该避免就痕迹的来源或犯罪人的身份做出结论性的评论。
