Questionable Aspects of Forensic Science: An In-Depth Analysis

In the world of forensic science, reliability and accuracy are paramount. However, certain techniques in forensic science have been brought into question due to their unreliability and lack of robust evidence. Two such techniques are bite mark comparison and fingerprint comparison. This article delves into the questionable aspects of these forensic methods, exploring their limitations and potential inaccuracies.

The Reliability of Bitemark Comparison

Bitemark comparison, a technique used to identify individuals based on dental impression marks, has faced significant scrutiny. The accuracy of bitemark comparison has been called into question due to a number of factors. One of the primary concerns is the variability in bitemarks, which can be influenced by numerous factors such as the force and angle of application. Additionally, the technique requires a high degree of subjective interpretation, leading to potential discrepancies among forensic experts.

Questionable Partial Fingerprint Comparisons

Partial fingerprint comparisons, another forensic technique, have also been scrutinized. These comparisons typically involve a limited number of points of co-occurrence, which are key features used to match fingerprints to individuals. A study has shown that reliance on these partial features can lead to questionable results. The NC Office of Indigent Defense Services has highlighted these concerns, emphasizing the need for more rigorous validation and standardization of the process.

FDA and PCAST Reports on Forensic Science

To address these concerns, several reports from reputable organizations have been conducted. Notably, the 2016 PCAST (President’s Council of Advisers on Science and Technology) report has drawn attention. The report concluded that certain aspects of forensic science, including bitemark and fingerprint comparisons, require further research and validation. Specifically, the report emphasized the need for standardized methodologies to reduce subjectivity and improve reliability.

Quantitative Image Measures in Fingerprint Comparison

A more recent development in forensic science is the use of quantitative image measures (QIM) to estimate error rates in fingerprint comparisons. QIM techniques involve the use of advanced algorithms to analyze and compare fingerprints based on a broad set of quantitative features. This approach aims to provide a more objective and standardized method for fingerprint comparison, thereby reducing the potential for human error. However, even QIM has room for improvement and requires ongoing validation and fine-tuning.

The Need for Continuous Improvement

It is clear that forensic science techniques such as bitemark and fingerprint comparisons are not immune to criticism. The ongoing scrutiny and advancements in forensic science highlight the need for continuous improvement and validation. To enhance the reliability and accuracy of forensic comparisons, forensic scientists must stay abreast of new research and technological developments. This includes the integration of QIM into standard practice, as well as the development of new methodologies to address the limitations of existing techniques.

Conclusion

While forensic science has made significant progress in identifying suspects and solving crimes, certain techniques such as bitemark and partial fingerprint comparisons remain questionable. The scientific community must work together to address these concerns and improve the overall reliability of forensic science. Through rigorous validation, standardized methodologies, and the integration of advanced technologies, forensic science can continue to serve justice effectively.

Keywords: forensic science, bitemark comparison, fingerprint comparison