Bitemarks 325The case of Ray Krone is a tragic indictment of law enforcement and
legal prosecution practices and of the faulty application of bitemark analysis.
This activity included overstating and overdramatizing the results of tests
and experiments and failure to follow accepted guidelines by not seeking
second opinions and disregarding or discounting the unsolicited opinions
received. The homicide detectives failed to thoroughly investigate and follow
all leads, and the prosecutors exhibited tunnel vision and willingness to shop
for expert opinions that supported their theory of the crime. During an inter-
view by a prosecutor before the retrial, one defense odontologist remarked,
“I hope you have other important evidence ... the bitemark evidence is bad”
and was bluntly told, “Doctor, this is a bitemark case and has always been a
bitemark case.”^24 The investigation, prosecution, and bitemark analysis and
testimony combined to produce real tragedy. This triumvirate committed
errors that compounded to produce a gross miscarriage of justice. This case
is described in detail in a book authored by Jim Rix, Ray Krone’s cousin and
the sponsor of his defense.^25
From a forensic odontology perspective, the initial opinion in any bite-
mark case should be referred to as “an investigative or preliminary opinion.”
The final opinion or evidentiary opinion should be formulated only after con-
sultation with others and a thorough review and repeated review of all evi-
dence, including scene photographs, video tapes, autopsy evidence, biological
evidence, all bitemark photographs, impressions, bite prints, the tissue, and
any other possibly useful information. One or more second opinions from
other competent forensic odontologists should be sought and considered.
14.1.3.5 Michael Cristini and Jeffrey Moldowan—Michigan
Until the uniqueness of the human dentition is established, the use of math-
ematical degrees of certainty in associating bitemarks to individuals is not
science. The Supreme Court of Michigan ruled that that type of testimony
was inadmissible after several cases in that state in which bitemarks were
associated to a suspect with statements of mathematical degrees of certainty.
The Court made its ruling based on appeals of several of these cases. The
1991 case of the kidnapping, assault, and rape of Maureen Fournier featured
the victim’s eyewitness identification of the five men who participated in the
attack and the two who allegedly bit her. Both Michael Cristini and Jeffrey
Moldowan were convicted based on the victim’s identifications and two
forensic odontologists’ testimony that the bitemark associations were posi-
tive. One of the dentists, Dr. Allan Warnick, testified that one of the marks
was made by Moldowan and the odds that someone else made the mark were
3 million to one.^26
This was not the only time that Dr. Warnick testified as to mathematical
probability in a bitemark case. In another case he testified that “the chances of
someone else having made the mark would be 4.1 billion to one.”^27 On appeal