Stuff You Should Know - Episode Summary: Forensic Dentistry

Release Date: December 26, 2024
Hosts: Josh Clark and Chuck Bryant
Production: iHeartPodcasts

Introduction to Forensic Dentistry

In this episode of Stuff You Should Know, hosts Josh Clark and Chuck Bryant delve into the fascinating and often controversial world of forensic dentistry. They explore how dental experts assist in identifying deceased individuals and examine the contentious practice of bite mark analysis, shedding light on both its historical significance and the scientific debates surrounding its validity.

1. Identification of the Deceased Through Dental Records

Forensic dentistry plays a crucial role in identifying deceased individuals, especially in scenarios where other identification methods, such as fingerprints or facial recognition, are ineffective. Josh and Chuck highlight the resilience of teeth in various conditions:

• Durability of Teeth: "Teeth are the strongest part of the body. They can survive fire, exposure to chemicals, and even explosions up to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit."
  (Timestamp: 04:31)

Dental records, including detailed notations about tooth structure, restorations, and unique dental work, allow forensic dentists to match an unidentified body to known records. This method has been instrumental in identifying victims of disasters, both natural and human-made.

2. The Controversial Practice of Bite Mark Analysis

Bite mark analysis emerged as a specialized area within forensic odontology, aimed at linking suspects to crimes through bite impressions left on victims. Initially celebrated for its potential in solving cases, it gained notoriety through high-profile convictions, notably that of serial killer Ted Bundy.

• Ted Bundy's Case:
  "Ted Bundy had extremely crooked front teeth... those bite marks were instrumental in his conviction."
  (Timestamp: 07:41)

However, as Josh and Chuck discuss, bite mark analysis has become increasingly scrutinized and is now widely regarded by many experts as "junk science."

3. Scientific Criticism and Debunking of Bite Mark Analysis

The scientific community has raised significant concerns about the reliability of bite mark analysis. Studies have demonstrated a lack of consensus among experts and questioned the premise that bite patterns are unique to individuals.

• 2015 Study Findings:
  "Only 8% of the photographs were correctly identified as human or animal bite marks by the experts."
  (Timestamp: 21:13)
  This study revealed that even trained forensic odontologists struggled to accurately differentiate between human and animal bites, undermining the credibility of bite mark evidence.

• Inconsistent Assessments:
  "Some experts didn't even agree with their previous assessments when shown the same bite marks weeks later."
  (Timestamp: 38:46)

These findings highlight the subjective nature of bite mark analysis and its susceptibility to error.

4. Legal and Judicial Impact of Faulty Bite Mark Evidence

Despite its questionable scientific basis, bite mark analysis has been used in numerous court cases, leading to wrongful convictions. Notable cases discussed include:

• Roy Brown Case:
  "He spent almost 20 years in jail largely based on bite mark analysis testimony."
  (Timestamp: 36:08)
  Forensic dentists involved later recanted their testimonies, acknowledging the flawed nature of their conclusions.

• John Kunko Case:
  "Convicted of rape and assault based on voice identification and bite mark evidence, both of which were later discredited."
  (Timestamp: 40:05)

• Steven Chaney Case:
  "Released by the Texas Court of Appeals in 2016 after fraudulent bite mark evidence was exposed."
  (Timestamp: 42:39)

These cases exemplify the profound consequences of relying on unreliable forensic methods.

5. The Role of the Innocence Project

The Innocence Project has been pivotal in challenging and overturning convictions based on faulty forensic evidence, including bite mark analysis. They actively oppose the admissibility of such evidence, advocating for scientific integrity in the legal system.

• "The Innocence Project objected to the use of bite mark analysis in court, labeling it as non-scientific and unreliable."
  (Timestamp: 40:05)

Their efforts have been instrumental in raising awareness and preventing future miscarriages of justice.

6. Current Standards and Practices in Forensic Odontology

In response to mounting criticism, the American Board of Forensic Odontology has revised its guidelines:

• Exclusion Only:
  "They are supposed to make three different calls: exclude, not exclude, and inconclusive."
  (Timestamp: 34:14)
  Experts are now limited to indicating whether a bite mark can be excluded as a match, rather than confirming a suspect's identity.

Despite these guidelines, some practitioners continue to overstate the reliability of bite mark evidence, leading to ongoing legal challenges.

7. Historical Perspectives: Paul Revere as a Forensic Odontologist

Adding a historical dimension, Josh and Chuck recount how Paul Revere, renowned for his role in the American Revolution, also contributed to early forensic odontology.

• Paul Revere's Contribution:
  "He identified individuals, including Dr. Joseph Warren, using dental records based on his knowledge and dental work."
  (Timestamp: 43:19)

This anecdote underscores the long-standing intersection between dentistry and forensic science.

Conclusion

Josh Clark and Chuck Bryant's exploration of forensic dentistry reveals a field marked by both invaluable contributions and significant controversies. While dental records remain a reliable tool for identifying the deceased, bite mark analysis has faced rigorous scientific scrutiny, leading to its diminished role in legal proceedings. The episode underscores the importance of scientific validation in forensic methods to ensure justice and accuracy in the courtroom.

Notable Quotes with Timestamps

• "Teeth are the strongest part of the body. They can survive fire, exposure to chemicals, and even explosions up to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit."
  — Chuck Bryant (04:31)

• "Bite mark analysis… is junk science."
  — Chuck Bryant (06:50)

• "Only 8% of the photographs were correctly identified as human or animal bite marks by the experts."
  — Jerry (21:13)

• "He spent almost 20 years in jail largely based on bite mark analysis testimony."
  — Chuck Bryant (36:08)

• "The Innocence Project objected to the use of bite mark analysis in court, labeling it as non-scientific and unreliable."
  — Chuck Bryant (40:05)

• "They are supposed to make three different calls: exclude, not exclude, and inconclusive."
  — Jerry (34:14)

For more in-depth information, listeners are encouraged to explore additional resources such as How Stuff Works articles referenced during the episode.