Odontology under attack
This section is dedicated to the increasing volume of articles which have been published (mainly in the USA but now also on BBC News online [15.02.16.]) questioning the validity of bite mark evidence. So far, the problems that Odonts in the States have experienced have not been evident in the UK, but it is important to know of the issues. Barristers here will no doubt be reading the same literature.
These articles emphasize the need to understand the limitations in bite injury cases and to proceed only where the quality and quantity of available evidence is sufficient to reach a justifiable (and reliable) conclusion.
It is absolutely correct to state that you can do nothing with a case, rather than provide dubious “expert” evidence.
Let these articles be a lesson and a warning to us all.
In this section
- Washington Post 2015 Bite Mark Analysis
- A bite mark matching advocacy group
- Bitten by experts
- Taking the Bite out of Bad Evidence
- Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States 2009
- About Bite Mark Evidence
- Bite-Mark Evidence Proving Unreliable
- Is bite-mark evidence reliable in court
- Lives in Balance, Texas Leads Scrutiny of Bite-Mark Forensics
- BBC News online - Can you catch a killer using only teeth marks
- President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology
- Forensic bitemark identification: weak foundations, exaggerated claims
- USA does a U-Turn on Forensic Science review