How are bite mark forensics a poor measure of determining whether a suspect matches the evidence found?
In: Other
Project Innocence had some good documentaries of innocent people convicted on the basis of bite marks. At the time, there were a few scientists trying to make a science out of it but without being aware of it hitting into all sorts of their own cognitive biases, such that they convinced themselves of the reliability of the identification. Prosecutors liked anyone who sounded convincing, and free legal aid wasn’t good at questioning such scientists.
It was declared a pseudoscience because it wasn’t reproduceable. When blind tests were administered to the experts asking them to identify which bite mark was human, from a bite, or simply a normal bruise, the results were nowhere near consistant. Unfortunately some people were in prison for a decade or more until their cases were revisited, and those convinced solely on bite marks were released.
Bite mark study is now used as a cautionary tale for how easy it is to start a pseudoscience without truly independent verification. Even the most intelligent scientists convince themselves of a result if it’s in their benefit.
A famous example in early science of this tendency is Blondlot , who “discovered” N rays as the new X ray. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosper-Ren%C3%A9_Blondlot](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/prosper-ren%c3%a9_blondlot) . He was a good scientist, but made a complete fool of himself over the subject and ruined his career. It’s even more a cautionary tale of observer bias.
Latest Answers