Bitemarks 353blind examinations, and the institution of proficiency testing. These changes
and others are needed to bring bitemark analysis (and some other identifica-
tion sciences) toward the realm of true sciences.
The chief bitemark evidence and analysis critic within forensic odon-
tology is Dr. C. Michael Bowers, a California forensic odontologist and
attorney. He has authored books, written articles, given affidavits, and pub-
lished his opinions on his website. Dr. Bowers appears to feel that bitemark
analysis should only be used to exclude or to associate an individual as a
“possible biter.” Stronger or more discriminatory positive associations seem
to be, in his view, not scientifically feasible. Interestingly, the ABFO deleted
the “ possible” designation when it revised the bitemark analysis guidelines
in 2006. Only “reasonable medical/dental certainty,” “probable,” “exclusion,”
and “inconclusive” remain as recommended conclusions.
Dr. Bowers coauthored a textbook, now in its second edition, teaching
methods for extensive bitemark detail analysis, metric analysis, exemplar crea-
tion, a nd feature comparison.^48 The techniques described in t he book are ver y
detailed and seem to be in significant contrast with the level of discrimination
that Dr. Bowers advocates elsewhere as appropriate in bitemark analysis.
In spite of past or recent claims to the contrary, it may not be possible to
mathematically or statistically prove the uniqueness of the anterior human
dentition related to the information found in bitemarks. Consequently, a path
similar to that recommended by Saks and Koehler seems the most sensible:
Continue research into uniqueness, but collect data and build databases on
the frequency with which those features and patterns of the anterior dentition
appear, especially those features that may also be discernable in bitemark pat-
terns. This work has already begun. Dr. L. Thomas Johnson and a Marquette
University team reported development of a computerized method of collect-
ing data on dental characteristics (oral presentations in Johnson et al.58,59).
The method may be the first step toward the creation of a database of the
frequency at which dental characteristics and combinations of characteristics
occur in a population. Dr. Roger Metcalf reported on an alternate method at
the same 2008 meeting (oral presentation in Metcalf et al.^60 ). That method is
currently being investigated at the University of Texas Health Science Center
in Sa n A ntonio.^52 One of t hese met hods or derivat ives, or perhaps ot her tota l ly
new methods, is likely the appropriate step for moving forensic odontology
and bitemark analysis along the correct path toward scientific vigor.
14.4.2 Human Skin as a Medium for
Recording Bitemark Patterns
In a 2001 article, Pretty and Sweet analyzed a 1984 uniqueness study and
stated, “Rawson has proven what his article claims, although perhaps not to
the mathematical or statistical certainty expressed.”^61 They added that the