Review Article

Year : 2021 | Volume : 6 | Issue : 1 | Page : 78 - 83

Limitations of Bitemarks as a Conclusive Evidence

Yasasvikumar Narendrabhai Vala, Divyesh Jagdishbhai Gopani, Yash Kishorbhai Babaria

Deparment of Forensic Science and Risk Management, Rashtriya Raksha University, Gandhinagar, Gujarat, India

Address for correspondence:

Mr. Yasasvi Narendrabhai Vala,

E‐mail: yasasvivala@gmail.com

Abstract

Bite marks identification can be used for comparison of a known person’s dentition to a patterned injury, which appears consistent with Bite marks and Forensic odontologists examine, interpret, analyze, and prepare reports on Bite marks. Bite marks identification is facing lots of challenges nowadays because of many wrongful convictions and The National Academy of Sciences’ Committee on Identifying the Needs of the Forensic Science Community 2009 report concluded that “The bottom line is simple: In a number of forensic science disciplines, forensic science professionals have yet to establish either the validity of their approach or the accuracy of their conclusions.” Bite marks evidence is under scrutiny because of lack the scientific foundation, assertions on the uniqueness of Bite marks and lack of reliability and accuracy in Bite marks identification methods. Expert testimony based upon false claims lead to many wrongful convictions and courts also permitted the entry of potentially unsafe testimony. There is a failure on behalf of the courts to undertake any gatekeeping functions. This article explains many irregularities and limitations in Bite marks identification and it also explains the role of the court and expert testimony in many wrongful convictions.

Key words: Bitemarks, expert testimony, wrongful convictions

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

How to cite this article:

Vala YN, Gopani DJ, Babaria YK. Limitations of bitemarks as a conclusive evidence. Int J Forensic Odontol 2021;6:78-83.