Forensics: Why bitemark matching is a pseudoscience. Courts need to pay attention.


This article is about the collision between legitimate forensic science versus bitemark “science” poseurs and the resulting damage to the US justice system. Review of a Forensic Pseudoscience. (accepted manuscript).

Much thanks to Elsevier ScienceDirect publisher Alexander Smith  and Journal of Forensics and Legal Medicine editor Tim Thompson for this publishing opportunity.


The forensic sciences are a combination of laboratory procedures and physical
comparisons of objects associated with victims, perpetrators, and crime scenes. The
former is largely university-based protocols adopted by crime labs. The latter is
predominantly pattern-matching tools originally developed by police examiners or
experts deemed by courts to be relevant to forensic matters. These Court accepted
experts bring their reasoning and conclusions into the legal arena. This subgroup of
forensics has undergone significant scrutiny in regards to its history of exaggerated
claims and weak scientific. This paper addresses the rise and fall of
bitemark pattern analysis (i.e. “matching” bitemarks in human flesh to human teeth) in the environment of opposing interests and agendas.

The Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine

Please cite this article as: Bowers CM, Review of a Forensic Pseudoscience: Identification of Criminals from Bitemark Patterns, Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine,


About csidds

Dr. Michael Bowers is a long time forensic consultant in the US and international court systems.
This entry was posted in AAFS, ABFO, Bitemarks, junk forensic science. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s