Problem-based analysis of bitemark misidentifications: the role of DNA

The dental literature concerning bitemark methodology is surprisingly thin and sorely lacking in rigorous scientific testing. Contra to this fact, the bitemark legal caselaw is surprisingly strong and is used as a substitute for reliability testing of bite mark identification. In short, the Judiciary and the Prosecutors have loved forensic odontologists. This paper will focus on the author's participation as a Defense expert over the last seven years in over 50 bitemark prosecutions and judicial appeals. This sampling will act as an anecdotal survey of actual bitemark evidence. Certain trends regarding methods and reliability issues of odontologists will be discussed. Several of these cases have been later judicially overturned due to DNA analyses after the defendants were originally convicted. These diagnostic misadventures are being vocally discussed in the US media by news and legal investigators who are asking hard questions. The forensic dentistry community, however, is curiously silent. What actions are necessary by the profession to improve this assault on the 52-year tradition of bite mark identifications in the United States?     

Analyzing the 2000 National Election Study

Nancy Burns Center for Political Studies 4246 ISR, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106-1248 e-mail: nburns{at}umich.edu (corresponding author) Michael J. Ensley Department of Political Science, 210 Woodburn Hall, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405 e-mail: ensley{at}indiana.edu Donald R. Kinder Center for Political Studies 4258 ISR, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106-1248 e-mail: drkinder{at}umich.edu In an earlier report, two of us (Bowers and Ensley, 2003, NationalElection Studies Technical Report, www.umich.edu/nes) provideda general framework for understanding the particular strategyoutlined by Fogarty et al. (in this issue). Fogarty et al.'sstrategy is to make the face-to-face variables more like therandom digit dial (RDD) telephone variables by trimming theends in order to reduce the variance of the face-to-face (FTF)variables. Perhaps some scholars will want the FTF variablesto look like the RDD variables, but that would be a fix fora specific research question. Given the significant differencesin the representativeness of the samples, the processes of surveynonresponse, and the quality and character of the responsesbetween data taken from a National Area Probability sample inperson and data taken from an RDD telephone sample, researchquestions involving comparisons with other years in the 50-yeartime series will require different remedies.     

WHEN MISSING DATA ARE NOT MISSING: A NEW APPROACH TO EVALUATING SUPPLEMENTAL HOMICIDE REPORT IMPUTATION STRATEGIES*

The Supplemental Homicide Reports (SHR) are widely used in criminological research and inform a broad range of research topics and subsequent policy applications. A serious issue with the SHR is missing information about the offender and incident in many recorded homicides. Although it is convenient to discard cases with missing data before analysis, such discarding is not theoretically justified and can lead to incorrect substantive conclusions. Recently, several techniques for imputing missing SHR data have been proposed, but it is difficult to evaluate their effectiveness. This research presents a new approach to testing and evaluating SHR imputation techniques. Offender data that are missing in the SHR are often found in police records available for individual cities. We examine similarities and differences among cases with known offender characteristics in the SHR, cases with such information missing in the SHR but available in police records, and cases with such information missing in both sources. We then use these data sets to evaluate four different imputation techniques suggested in the literature (Fox, 2004; Messner, Deane, and Beaulieu, 2002; Pampel and Williams, 2000; Regoeczi and Riedel, 2003). We apply each imputation technique to the SHR, and for cases with information missing in the SHR but known in the police records, we see how well the imputed values correspond both with the individual known values and with the overall distributions in the police records. We discuss the outcome of our assessment of these strategies, and we outline important implications this assessment has for research using SHR data.     

The Nature of Mass Murder and Autogenic Massacre

Incidents of mass murder have gained considerable media attention, but are not well understood in behavioral sciences. Current definitions are weak, and may include politically or ideological motivated phenomenon. Our current understanding of the phenomenon indicates these incidents are not peculiar to only western cultures, and appear to be increasing. Methods most prominently used include firearms by males who have experienced challenging setbacks in important social, familial and vocational domains. There often appears to be important autogenic components (Mullen Behavioral Sciences and the Law (22)3, 2004), including dysthymic reactions and similar antecedents. There have been observations of possible seasonal variations in mass murders, but research to date is inadequate to establish this relationship. It is recommended behavioral sciences and mental health researchers increase research efforts on understanding mass killings, as the current socioeconomic climate may increase vulnerability to this phenomenon, and the incidents are not well understood despite their notoriety.