316 Forensic dentistry
many of the issues that made them problem cases may have been and should
have been avoided.
In addition to Illinois v. Milone, already noted, the following significant
and problematic cases will be discussed in the next section, on problem
cases: Oklahoma v. Wilhoit, 1987; Michigan v. Cristini and Moldowan, 1991;
Arizona v. Krone, 1992 and 1995; and Mississippi v. Brewer, 1995.
14.1.3 Problem Cases
In relation to the total number of cases involving bitemarks, the problem
cases have been relatively few, but the consequences of those problem cases
have been very serious. It can be argued that, if bitemark analysis is prop-
erly conducted, there should be no problem cases. What can be learned from
these problem cases? Is there a common theme in these cases even though
the individuals and circumstances are different? The details of the following
few cases will hopefully shed light on the problems and pitfalls of bitemark
analysis and help prevent errors in the future.
14.1.3.1 Frederik Fasting Torgersen, 1958
The body of Rigmor Johnsen was found by Oslo, Norway, firemen responding
to a fire in the basement of her apartment building on the night of December
7, 1957. She had been sexually assaulted and the cause of death was listed as
manual strangulation. There was a bitemark on the left breast. A forensic
dentist from the University of Oslo, Professor Ferdinand Strom, collected
the bitemark evidence and he and another dentist testified in the original
trial in 1958 linking the teeth of Torgersen with the bitemark (Figures 14.8 to
14.11). The only other physical evidence was the presence of nonspecific feces
on Torgersen’s shoes and some common tree needles in his jacket pockets
and the cuffs of his trousers. Torgersen was convicted of murder and sen-
tenced to life in prison. An appeal, also in 1958, affirmed the conviction.
Torgersen served sixteen years in prison and was released in 1974. He main-
tains his innocence and has repeatedly sought a new trial. The court engaged
Professor Gisele Bang of Sweden to review the original materials in 1975.
In 1976 he determined that Torgersen had likely made the bitemarks. A team
of persons believing in Torgersen’s innocence succeeded in convincing the
Norwegian court to look into the matter again. In 1999 and 2000 Professors
Gordon MacDonald and David Whittaker of Scotland and Wales reviewed
the material and wrote reports generally supporting the earlier conclusions.
In February 2001 Torgersen’s defense team brought Dr. David Senn from
Texas to Oslo to review the remaining materials in the University of Oslo
laboratory of Professor Tore Solheim. Among that evidence was the removed
and preserved breast of Rigmor Johnsen. The breast had been placed in
Kaiserling’s solution and sealed in a plastic container since the autopsy. None