Weighing evidence: Quantitative measures of the importance of bitemark evidence

Journal of Forensic Odonto-Stomatology

Volumn 20, Issue 2, 2002, Pages 31-37

  Kittelson, J M ^a   Kieser, J A ^b,c   Buckingham, D M ^b   Herbison, G P ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OTAGO   (New Zealand)

^c UNIVERSITY OF OTAGO   (New Zealand)

^d NONE

Author keywords

Bayesian; Bitemark; Likelihood ratio

Indexed keywords

BAYES THEOREM; BITE; CALCULATION; COURT; DENTIST; DENTISTRY; EXPERT WITNESS; FORENSIC IDENTIFICATION; GUILT; HUMAN; LIKELIHOOD RATIO; MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; REVIEW; STATISTICAL MODEL;

EID: 0036969561     PISSN: 0258414X     EISSN: 22196749     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (19)

1. Naru AS. Method for the analysis of human bite marks. Forensic Sci Rev 1997;20:124-34.
2. Taylor RMS. Variation in form of human teeth: I An anthropological and forensic study of maxillary incisors. J Dent Res 1969;48:173-82.
3. Taylor RMS. Variation in form of human teeth: II An anthropological study of maxillary canines. J Dent Res 1969;48:173-82.
4. Kieser JA. Human adult odontometrics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
5. Sognnaes RF, Rawson RD, Gratt BM, Nguyen NBT. Computer comparison of bitemark patterns in identical twins. J Am Dent Assoc 1982;105:449-51.
6. Rawson RD, Ommen RK, Kinard G, Johnson J, Yfantis A. Statistical evidence for the individuality of human dentition. J Forensic Sci 1984;29:245-53.
7. McKenna CJ, Haron MI, Taylor JA. Evaluation of a bitemark using clear acrylic replicas of the suspect s dentition. J Forensic Odontostomatol 1999;17:40-3.
8. Court of Criminal Appeal (Qld); Raymond John Carroll. 1985; 19A Crim R.
9. Robertson B, Vignaux GA. Interpreting evidence. Chichester: John Wiley, 1996.
10. Lindley DV. A problem in forensic science. Biometrika 1997;64:207-13.
11. Evett IW. Bayesian inference and forensic science: problems and perspectives. The Statistician 1987;36:99-105.
12. Good IJ. Weight of evidence and the Bayesian likelihood ratio. In: Aitken CGG, Stoney DA Eds. The use of statistics in forensic science. New York: Ellis, 1991.
13. Foster KR, Huber PW. Judging science: scientific knowledge and the Federal Courts. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1999.
14. Malakoff D. Bayes offers a new way to make sense of numbers. Science 1999;286:1460-4.
15. Goodman SA. Toward evidence-based medical statistics: the p-value fallacy. Anns Int Med 1999;130:995-1013.
16. Clement JG. ASFO guest editorial. Forensic Odontology News 1999;18:3-12.
17. Taroni F, Mangin P, Perrior M. Identification concept and the use of probabilities for forensic odontology. J Forensic Odontostomatol 2000;18:15-7.
18. R v. Adams; Court of Appeal of England and Wales (Criminal Division), Royal Courts of Justice, The Strand London WC2.
19. Taroni F, Aitkin CGG, Garbolino. De Finetti s subjectivism, the assessment of probabilities and the evaluation of evidence: a commentary for forensic scientists. Science and Justice 2001;145-50.