Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Forensic Sci Int. 2016 Sep;266:263-270. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2016.06.002. Epub 2016 Jun 16.

Inconsistency in opinions of forensic odontologists when considering bite mark evidence.

Author information

1
University of Glamorgan, Faculty of Health Sport and Science, Forensic Odontology Lab, Alfred Wallace Building, Upper Glyn Taff Campus, Trefforest, Pontypridd CF37 1DL, United Kingdom. Electronic address: vijaykumar.reesu@gmail.com.
2
University of Glamorgan, Faculty of Health Sport and Science, Forensic Odontology Lab, Alfred Wallace Building, Upper Glyn Taff Campus, Trefforest, Pontypridd CF37 1DL, United Kingdom. Electronic address: nathanlbrown@aol.com.

Abstract

There has been controversy surrounding the principles of bite mark analysis, and also the opinions reached by forensic odontologists. The purpose of this study was to assess the consistency of opinions formed by forensic odontologists, both for individual odontologists after a period of time, and between odontologists. 23 forensic odontologists participated, and opinions on 4 cases per member were requested. The request was then repeated after a 8 week period. Results highlighted an inconsistency in opinions between odontologists, and also an inconsistency in opinion for individual members over time, even for experienced odontologists. Inconsistencies varied from whether the mark could be from human or animal, and also from adult or child. In conclusion, the authors recommend that bite mark evidence should be treated with caution.

KEYWORDS:

Bite mark; Expert opinion; Forensic odontology; Forensic science

PMID:
27344263
DOI:
10.1016/j.forsciint.2016.06.002
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center