Bitemarks 363
and it usually involves domestic cases or civil action after a criminal case
has been adjudicated. For example, childcare givers or facilities may be sued
by parents whose child has been bitten. The question will likely be not who
made the bite, but only the age of the biter: Was the biter a child or an adult?
The plaintiff sues if their child was bitten by a caregiver. The defense will
likely contend that the bite was from another child. The case may proceed or
be d ism issed h i ng i ng upon odontolog ist s’ ex per t opi n ions. A BFO g u idel i nes
recommend that forensic dentists consult other forensic dentists in bitemark
cases. This practice is advisable but places responsibility on the dentist who
is consulted, which may also have consequences. If consulted but not called
to testify, and the testimony given by the primary forensic dentist results in
posttrial lawsuits, the consulted dentist(s) may also be drawn into a diffi-
cult situation. The situation can be ameliorated by writing clear reports and
keeping excellent records.
14.7 The Future of Bitemark Analysis
In April 2007, the National Academy of Science’s Committee on Identifying
the Needs of the Forensic Sciences Community sponsored an inquiry into
forensic identification sciences, including bitemark analysis.^84 The com-
mittee interviewed a forensic odontologist representing organized forensic
odontology education and the ABFO, asking questions about the current
status and the future of bitemark analysis. The questions included: What is
the state of the art? Where is research conducted? What is the scientific basis
that informs the interpretation of the evidence? What are the major problems
in the scientific foundation, methods, and practice? The responses to those
questions and the conclusions relayed to the National Academy relate directly
to the future of bitemark analysis. The standards for bitemark analysis must
be closer to the state of the art. This means that forensic odontologists must
be capable of using all known evidence collection and comparison modali-
ties and select those modalities appropriate for the case in question. They
should employ blinding techniques to inhibit bias and observer effects in
all appropriate phases of their work. Competent forensic odontologists will
seek second or multiple second opinions from other independent, blinded,
competent forensic odontologists. They will engage in continuous study and
research to improve themselves and forensic odontology and recognize and
abide by appropriate codes of ethics and conduct. They understand the sci-
entific method and use the method in tests and procedures to the greatest
extent possible.
In February 2009, the National Academy of Sciences Committee released
their report titled Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path
Forward.^85 The 254 page pre-publication version of the report, henceforth