Bitemarks 359
sciences. The Madrid error in fingerprint analysis seems a prime example.^82
That the ego and egocentricity of some forensic odontologists have contrib-
uted to errors in bitemark analysis problem cases is undeniable. Most, but not
all, of those who bear the responsibility for the errors made in these prob-
lem cases steadfastly insist that others do not or cannot see what they see.
They appear to have that cognitive disconnect consistent with the theories of
Greenwald, a totalitarian ego.
Forensic odontologists must learn to deal with these effects before the
consequences appear in their work. They must recognize personal signs of
ego-related hazards, and take draconian steps to reduce expectation or con-
firmation bias. This can be greatly facilitated by continuing the development
and positive modification of guidelines and protocols designed to minimize
those effects. Additionally, periodically testing the proficiency of forensic
odontologists in bitemark analysis must become a requirement.
14.5 Forensic Value of Bitemark Evidence
Bitemark analysis, like all of the forensic sciences, has played and should con-
tinue to play an important role in the criminal justice system. There will be new
developments, new techniques, and new challenges. Although errors occur
in all endeavors, forensic scientists have a greater responsibility to minimize
errors because of the consequences to people’s lives. Bitemark analysis has
not been exempt from the challenges accompanying the advances in scien-
tific techniques and the learning curves associated with them. In the major-
ity of the bitemark cases reported over the last fifty plus years in the United
States, this evidence has been used primarily to link a suspected biter to a
specific victim. Bitemarks, unlike fingerprints and DNA, lack the specificity
and durability that these two modalities employ; human teeth change over
time and their uniqueness remains unproven. Bitemark evidence, however,
has other advantages that are useful to the criminal justice system apart from
the specifics of linking a specific individual to the crime or victim. The use of
bitemark analysis in an abuse case is a practical example. Many abuse cases
involve suspects that are in frequent contact with the victim. In those cases
fingerprints and DNA are of almost no value, as they would be expected to
be present in abundance. A bitemark, on the other hand, is not accidentally
or casually inflicted and is an indication of intimate and violent interaction.
If bitemark analysis can lead to the inclusion or exclusion of suspects, that
is very powerful evidence indeed. For a bitemark to be useful for analysis it
must contain abundant information and the teeth that made the mark must
be very distinctive. The specificity of evidence is inversely proportional to
its variables. Because of the high number of variables involved in bitemark
evidence, the specificity of associating a bitemark to a single suspect is low.