How are bite mark forensics a poor measure of determining whether a suspect matches the evidence found?
In: Other
Almost always a bite mark is used to try and rule someone out vs rule them in. Almost all evidence is like that actually, even DNA. DNA matches are never given as “yes, it’s that person’s DNA and only their DNA” it’s always given as “the chances of that DNA belonging to anyone else are 1 in 10 billion” or whatever, meaning there aren’t enough people on the planet for it to reasonably be someone else, but, there’s still a slim chance you could find one other person who matches. Bite marks are similar, but with much wider error. If Sally shows up saying she was attacked and her assailant bit her on the upper arm, and she thinks it was that dude with long hair and brown eyes over there, a bite mark examiner could look and see “ok, in this bite mark on Sally, we can see 6 teeth outlined, and the front two are very crooked”. Then they could look at that long haired dude over there and if they can see his front teeth are really straight, or he doesn’t have front teeth, or his mouth is too big/small to have reasonably made the mark, then they have some idea that it probably wasn’t him who bit Sally so they can look for someone else. But any good examiner would never say “yes, those are that dude’s teeth marks on Sally’s” arm
Latest Answers