326 Forensic dentistryin 1997, Drs. Homer Campbell and Richard Souviron independently reviewed
the evidence and reported that, in their opinion, Moldowan and Cristini
could be excluded.^12 In 2002 a Michigan Court of Appeals jury acquitted
Moldowan. In 2004 Mr. Cristini was also granted a new trial. The court ruled
that no testimony regarding mathematical degrees of certainty for bitemarks
would be heard. This likely stemmed from other cases in which Dr. Warnick
had given testimony. In one he said “that out of the 3.5 million people resid-
ing in the Detroit metropolitan area, the defendant was the only one whose
dentition could match the individual who left the possible bite mark on the
victim’s cheek.”^28
In the Cristini retrial the prosecution expert, Dr. G. Berman, testified that
Cristini made the bitemark with a high degree of certainty, and the defense
expert, Dr. Souviron, testified that Cristini could be excluded. In an unusual
twist in this trial, one of the original odontologists for the prosecution in the
first trial in 1991, Dr. Pamela W. Hammel, took the stand for the defense and
testified that she had erred in the original trial. She stated that she had been
lied to and misled by the other prosecution expert. She stated further that she
originally had doubts about the orientation of the bitemark, and after gaining
more experience and reviewing the evidence, she realized her error. It took a
great deal of courage for her to admit the error, but it was absolutely the right
thing to do. The jury acquitted Mr. Cristini. He had spent thirteen years in
prison. In December 2008 it was reported in the media that Mr. Cristini had
been arrested and charged with eight counts of first-degree criminal sexual
conduct allegedly involving a five-year-old child.^29
What can be learned from this case? First, that eyewitness testimony
may or may not be accurate—here the victim may have been wrong about
the identity of the biters. She accused others that were later proven to be else-
where at the time of the crime. Second, there is no scientific basis for math-
ematical degree of certainty with bitemark evidence on skin. Third, unlike in
other cases, one of the experts had the courage to take the stand and admit
an earlier error.
In the above detailed problem cases there was agreement among both
the defense and the prosecution experts that these were indeed human bite-
marks. The disagreements were related to features and orientation of the
bitemarks and to who could have or who could not have inflicted the bites.
The problems were compounded in some cases by the use of mathematical
degrees of certainty or overreaching statements of the value and certainty of
bitemark evidence.
14.1.3.6 Kennedy Brewer—Mississippi
The most flagrant departures from best practices in forensic odontology have
occurred when a patterned injury not caused by human teeth has been mis-
diagnosed as a human bitemark. The most recent and highly publicized of