Kieser Jules A
Department of Oral Sciences Faculty of Dentistry, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand,
Forensic Sci Med Pathol. 2005 Jun;1(2):75-80. doi: 10.1385/FSMP:1:2:075.
Forensic bitemark identification is a demanding area of odontological expertise that typically relies on a three-stage process consisting of a detailed examination of the bitemark, an examination and clinical evaluation of the suspect's dentition, occlusion, and temporomandibular joint, followed by the interpretation of the available evidence. Because the investigator faces a complex body of often incomplete or ambiguous data that has to be reconciled in order to arrive at a conclusion, uncertainty plays a large role in the process. This review evaluates modern bitemark analysis in the light of Daubert's criteria, with special reference to modern ideas about reasoning under uncertainty. It concludes that more than 150 years of developments in bitemark evidence still leaves us without some sort of consensual basis to decide whether or not bitemark evidence should be admitted. However, recent scientific attempts to introduce new bitemark techniques and also to evaluate the evidential reliability of bitemark evidence have offered exciting new perspectives on this debate.
法医咬痕鉴定是牙科学专业领域中一项要求严苛的工作，通常依赖于一个三阶段的流程，该流程包括对咬痕进行详细检查、对嫌疑人的牙列、咬合以及颞下颌关节进行检查和临床评估，随后对现有证据进行解读。由于调查人员面对的是大量往往不完整或模糊不清的数据，必须对这些数据进行梳理才能得出结论，因此不确定性在这一过程中起着很大的作用。本综述根据达伯特标准评估现代咬痕分析，特别参考了关于不确定性推理的现代观点。结论是，咬痕证据经过150多年的发展，我们仍然没有某种共识基础来决定是否应采纳咬痕证据。然而，最近在引入新的咬痕技术以及评估咬痕证据的证据可靠性方面所做的科学尝试，为这场辩论提供了令人兴奋的新视角。
