The Forensic Science Of Bite Evidence

At least two dozen men convicted or charged with murder or rape based on bite marks on the flesh of victims have been exonerated since 2000, many of them after spending years in prison (citation). Testifying in bite mark evidence cases for the prosecution is a small group of dentists, who make pronoucements about the science of bite mark evidence when, in fact, there is no scientific proof that teeth can be matched definitively to a bite into human skin (citation). DNA yields more conclusive results, and, consequently, bite mark analysis is no longer used by the FBI, and the American Dental Association does not recognize it (Citation).
"Bite mark evidence is the poster child of unreliable forensic science," said Chris Fabricant, director of
strategic litigation at the New York-based Innocence Project, which helps wrongfully convicted inmates win freedom through DNA testing (Citation). Supporters of bite mark analysis argue it has helped convict child murderers and other notorious criminals, including serial killer Ted Bundy (citation). They say problems that have arisen are not about the method, but about the qualifications of those testifying, who can earn as much as $5,000 a case.
"The problem lies in the analyst or the bias," said Dr. Frank Wright, a forensic dentist in Cincinnati. "So if the analyst is … not properly trained or introduces bias into their exam, sure, it's going to be polluted, just like any other scientific investigation. It doesn't mean bite mark evidence is bad" (citation).