Forensic odontology: Wrong convictions, "bad apples" and "the innocence files"

Abstract

Forensic odontology (FO) provides expert testimony; however, new criticism has identified FO as one of the fields that must strengthen its scientific foundations. The recent Netflix documentary titled "The Innocence Files", featuring wrongful convictions, dedicates three of its nine episodes almost exclusively to bite mark identification (BMI), one of the most questioned tests performed by FO. Although most of the FO fields have an undoubted utility in forensic and juridical context, only BMI has been questioned in recent years; the derogatory expression "Junk science" is used continuously in the documentary almost as a synonym for FO. We present a scoping review of cases reported in the US National Registry of Exonerations in which FO was false or misleading forensic evidence (F/MFE) leading to wrongful convictions. Although in the 26 cases identified the only declared F/MFE was the BMI (excluding any other type of dental expertise), only in 2 cases (7.69%) was F/MFE the sole contributing factor, and in 4 cases (15.38%) there was F/MFE plus three additional factors. Official misconduct was detected in 19 cases (73.08%) and perjury or false accusation in 16 cases (61.54%). It has already been mentioned how dangerous it is to consider FO as synonymous with "bite mark identification", or even to publicly provide incorrect or decontextualized information. This review shows that erroneous convictions have been exclusively in the field of BMI, and that FO encompasses much more than just BMI. The relationship between the media and forensic sciences has been strained. The perspective of the new culture of risk management in forensics is also discussed.

Keywords: Bite mark identification; Exonerations; Forensic odontology; Junk science; Legal decisions; Media.