Way back when, monsters like Ted Bundy were taken off the streets in part because of a relatively new scientific field called bite-mark forensics. The idea was that the arrangement of teeth in a suspect’s mouth would leave a signature bite mark. If that bite mark could be traced back to a suspect, then this was proof that the bite had to have come from his or her mouth.
The only downside to that concept was that it never had a single shred of scientific proof that it worked. Nothing at all.
The problem with bite mark analysis is that, while it is true that a mouth full of teeth will leave a distinct pattern on something flat and immobile, most things in this world are not quite so perfectly constructed for bite mark analysis. in the particularly ghoulish case of tooth marks in flesh, the flesh tends to bend and warp and flesh does. This renders what little reliability bite-mark forensics has moot.
So, this is another one of those cases where forensic science is getting gut-punched while case after case is overturned on the basis of evidence once presented to us as infallible.
Bite mark forensics is the study of how bite marks can be used to identify the dental “signature” of an individual. Such evidence has been used to convict Ted Bundy, among others.
Source: Texas bans the use of bite mark forensics in court cases – DragonFlyEye.Net
