356 Forensic dentistryobjective was “to determine whether examiner experience, bitemark certainty,
or forensic value had an effect on accuracy.” They discussed the weaknesses in
the study design, including the uncertain nature of using unverified casework
due to the “possibility that the original examining dentist was wrong.”^77
As casework, the bitemarks on skin depicted patterned injuries for
which the true biter was unknown. Consequently, mathematical or statistical
analysis of the opinions of workshop participants was not possible without
assuming that a true cause-effect relationship existed in each of the cases.
As stated in the ABFO “Position Paper on Bitemark Workshop 4,” “It was
designed as an educational exercise whose primary purpose was designed to
survey the degree of agreement (or disagreement) between diplomates con-
fronted with cases of varying amounts and quality of bitemark evidence.”^78
The ABFO further stated in the paper, “In conclusion, the ABFO states
that due to the limitations imposed by the case material used in Bitemark
Workshop #4, one cannot draw accurate statistical conclusions applicable to
actual casework. Bitemark Workshop #4 was neither designed as, nor can it
be used as, a proficiency test for forensic odontology. Tests of consistency and
validity (necessary in a proficiency examination) were neither accomplished
nor attempted; and, as subsequent reviewers of the data correctly pointed
out, the construction of the examination and the workshop was not designed
to produce an examination that had statistical validity and statistical con-
sistenc y. The ABFO reiterates that it remains the responsibility of each indi-
vidual examiner to determine if sufficient evidence exists to go forward with
a meaningful bitemark analysis.”^78
Problems appeared when others implied that the Bitemark Workshop #4
was a bitemark proficiency examination of ABFO diplomates and mischarac-
terized the results. Although it is unclear whether his actions were intentional
mischaracterization or well-intentioned error, the most enigmatic generator
of misinformation about this workshop is an ABFO diplomate, Dr. C. Michael
Bowers of California. In 2002 the Supreme Court of Mississippi was consider-
ing a petition for postconviction relief in a death penalty case involving alleged
bitemarks. Included in the petition was this material described by the court:
In support of this claim, Brewer presents the affidavit of Charles Michael
Bowers, D.D.S., along with the draft of an unpublished article outlining the
shortcomings of bite-mark evidence and the error rate as determined by the
American Board of Forensic Odontology. He urges that this Court should not
tolerate a science that, as Brewer claims, is more likely than not to identify the
wrong suspect.”^79 In that 2001 affidavit, Dr. Bowers wrote, “Recently, a study
completed by the ABFO of participating members, regarding the reliability of
bite mark identification evidence produced data on the accuracy of results in
bite mark identification forensic casework. These results counter balance the
years of assured self-confidence shown by the dentists testifying on bite mark