Question

Bite mark evidence, in the absence of residual DNA, is absolute. A forensic odontologist can conclusively match a scaled image of a bite mark to the mouth of a single offender. This type of scientific comparison is just as sound as comparing DNA.

1) TRUE.
2) FALSE

Answer 1

Bite mark evidence, in the absence of residual DNA, is not as reliable or conclusive as DNA evidence.

Step-by-step explanation:

The statement that bite mark evidence, in the absence of residual DNA, is absolute and that forensic odontologists can conclusively match a scaled image of a bite mark to the mouth of a single offender is FALSE.

While bite mark evidence can be used in investigations, it is not considered as reliable or conclusive as DNA evidence. Bite marks can be subjective and are influenced by factors such as tissue distortion, variation in bite mark patterns, and the lack of standardization in bite mark analysis. DNA evidence, on the other hand, is highly accurate and can provide a definitive match between a suspect and the crime scene.