Comparison of. Forensic dentistry at Business plan software News

Comparison of. Forensic dentistry

Published January 30th, 2008 in Uncategorized

Forensic dentistry or forensic odontology is the proper handling, examination and evaluation of dental evidence, which will be then presented in the interest of justice. The evidence that may be derived from teeth, is the age (in children) and identification of the person to whom the teeth belong. This is done using dental records or ante-mortem (prior to death) photographs.

The other type of evidence is that of bite marks, left on either the victim (by the attacker), the perpetrator (from the victim of an attack), or on an object found at the crime scene. Bite marks are often found on children who are abused.

Forensic dentists are responsible for six main areas of practice:

Identification of found human remains
Identification in mass fatalities
Assessment of bite mark injuries
Assessment of cases of abuse (child, spousal, elder)
Civil cases involving malpractice
Age estimation

High-profile criminal cases

Forensic odontology has played a key role in famous criminal cases:

State of Florida v. Ted Bundy
State of New Jersey v. Jesse Timmendequas (Megan’s Law case)
People of California v. Marx, the 1975 case which established evidentiary standards for forensic odontology
People of Arizona v. Ray Krone, bite mark evidence led to a wrongful conviction.

Criticism

Recently, the scientific foundation of forensic odontology, and especially bite mark comparison, has been called into question. An investigative series by the Chicago Tribune entitled “Forensics under the Microscope” examined many forensic science disciplines to see if they truly deserve the air of infallibility that has come to surround them. The investigators concluded that bite mark comparison is always subjective and no standards for comparison have been accepted across the field. The journalists discovered that no rigorous experimentation has been conducted to determine error rates for bite mark comparison, a key part of the scientific method. Critics of bite mark comparison cite the case of Ray Krone, an Arizona man convicted of murder on bite mark evidence left on a woman’s breast. DNA evidence later implicated another man and Krone was released from prison.[1]