A collection of the few remaining forensic dentists who believe that bitemarks should be used in the Courts published, in 2018, a “commentary” in the American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology, defending the science and, as usual, attacking those who would seek to assess and challenge the underlying scientific basis for the use of such evidence.
As a “commentary” the work is not peer reviewed and hence is little more than a letter to the editor, and while its format and publication suggest a scientific paper, it could be nothing further from this. It is somewhat typical that this group elected to write a missive rather than, as has been asked of them by the Texas Forensic Science Commission (TFSC) and others, undertake actual research.
The piece contains the usual well rehearsed arguments that have been touted by the group for years and yet have been rejected by the NAS, the TFSC and the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. It’s “whimsical” title speaks to the approach taken by the authors.
However, despite the lack of rigour engaged by the authors, the Albany Law Review has published a response to the article, taking a far more scientific approach to the issues raised.
The critique of Epidermis and Enamel shows it to be riddled with logical flaws; failing to critically address scientific analyses showing the unreliability of bite mark analysis; erroneously deflecting criticism of bite-mark (in)accuracy by noting that wrongful convictions often have multiple causes; mischaracterizing social scientific research; falsely claiming that a number of exonerations were not wrongful convictions; being highly defensive; citing the testimonials of supporters; and defaming its critics. The illogical defense of bite mark analysis by forensic odontologists is explained in social psychological terms through the constructs of organizational deviance, groupthink, cognitive dissonance, cognitive bias, and Mercier and Sperber’s evolutionary theory of reasoning. We conclude by noting that the resistance to scientific challenge by the forensic odontologists in their editorial reflects the rear-guard defensiveness displayed by other forensic analysts and unprogressive prosecutors.
THE BITE MARK DENTISTS AND THE COUNTERATTACK ON FORENSIC SCIENCE REFORM
Marvin Zalman and James Windell
The Article
You can view the article here – its worth taking a while to read it.
The Reponse
Below is the response, authored by Marvin Zalman and James Windell, published in the Albany Law Review. It’s an extensive and exhaustive response, in contrast to the original article and provides an excellent overview of the state of the science.