Embedded Files
By: Faith Bittner
12/10/23
At the top of the page, give a brief overview of this section of the project. This orients your reader to the materials on this page.
*NOTE: Be sure to change the title of this page from "Project Section 2" in the "Pages" menu and at the top of this page to the title of the section it is presenting*
Dr. Richard Souviron presents the bitemark evidence during Bundy's case.
https://picryl.com/media/dental-evidence-ted-bundy-69dbccBitemark evidence exposes flaws in forensic science
Bitemark evidence exposes flaws in forensic science
Ted Bundy, arguably the most notorious serial killer in history, eventually received his sentence based on bitemark evidence left on one of his victims. While there is no doubt that Bundy deserved his punishment, the bitemarks should not have been the deciding factor. The lack of development in the field of forensics forced the trial to rely on the bitemark evidence. The times have changed, and recent studies have deemed bitemark evidence to be unreliable with high error rates.
"In fact, 26 people have been wrongfully convicted based on bitemark evidence, and some were even sentenced to death."
"In fact, 26 people have been wrongfully convicted based on bitemark evidence, and some were even sentenced to death."
Actually, it is likely that even more people, who are innocent, are locked away based on faulty bitemark evidence.
This brings to the surface the ethical side of forensics. Who is to say that the evidence provided can, without a doubt, put away the correct offender? What happens when certain evidence is flawed yet remains admissible in court? Unfortunately, this is an all too real possibility, and it can occur without the public realizing it. Since the majority of jurors lack a background in forensic science, it is easy for them to be misguided by the findings that are presented.
Theoretically, evidence should present an error rate of 0% or at least a minimal amount. This is significant and worth analyzing to understand the source of error.
It is important to note that the bite mark evidence is almost never labeled as a “match” with a suspect’s teeth. This is unlike other pieces of evidence like fingerprints and DNA, where forensic analysts can confirm the evidence as a match. The refusal to characterize the evidence as confirmatory indicates there is a level of uncertainty regarding its logic.
Another source of error is the limitation of evidence. Adult humans have 32 teeth, but bitemarks typically are composed of the front teeth. Also, analysts typically are only working with marks made by the edges of the teeth. Therefore, a lot is missing from the bigger picture.
The same set of teeth creating two drastically different bitemark patterns.
https://newsroom.taylorandfrancisgroup.com/forensic-bitemark-analysis-for-court-trials-is-not-supported-by-sufficient-data-and-is-leading-to-wrongful-convictions/#:~:text=The%20authors%20note%20that%20of,death%20row%20before%20being%20exonerated.Bitemarks almost always appear on the skin of a victim. Since skin is elastic, it can not accurately retain the pattern of the teeth.
Bitemarks almost always appear on the skin of a victim. Since skin is elastic, it can not accurately retain the pattern of the teeth.
Usually, bitemarks are from crimes of passion where there is a struggle. This further increases the distortion of the skin. When it returns to its original state, the marks are also misshapen from how they would normally appear.
This begs the question of why bitemark evidence is still admissible in court. In the 1970s, a huge case occurred to allow bitemarks to be admissible in all 50 states. Dentists testified to support the fact that bitemarks are unique. The court determined that bitemark comparisons were acceptable in court, but they did not include any limitations to the evidence. The rest is history.
The usage of unreliable evidence carries heavy implications in court. Jurors could make a conclusion based on faulty evidence. This then could lead to an unfair sentencing or allow a guilty party to walk free. As stated above, people may remain on death row for extended periods of time, even though they are innocent. People can lose years off of their life, while the guilty person retains their freedom. One would think the justice system would have a better method of excluding evidence that often has inconsistent results.
An example of a bitemark formed on human skin.
http://dentalteacher.com/tutorials/domestic_violence/bitemarkevidence.htmlChanges need to be put in place to assess the validity of evidence in court. The first step in this process is informing those that may not realize the flaws of certain evidence and how they make their way into court. Evidence should lead jurors, who presumably have no prior knowledge about forensic science, to a verdict that hopefully provides justice for any victims. Invalid evidence does not achieve this goal and can ruin the lives of the innocent.
Page updated
Report abuse