Page 41 - Forensic News Journal Oct Nov 2017
P. 41
Bite Mark Forensic Evidence
4. skin violently torn from
body
(O’Conner, 2006).
F
O BITE MARK
R ANALYSIS
E
N In odontology, for a physi-
S cal comparison of a bite
I mark to be successful, the
C questioned evidence (Q)
photograph of the bite
M mark must be accurately
Photo Courtesy of google.com
E produced. It must then be filled thereafter with me- rate way to avoid any dis-
T recreated in a life size tallic powder. After this is crepancies and allows the
H dimension, and is then done an x-ray film is used examiner to use the com-
O called the Known (K) to capture the teeth im- puter functions into a mi-
D evidence. After this is pression. The direct super- croscope for comparison.
O done, the plaster cast of imposition of Q and K The computerized system
L the defendant’s teeth are photographs are used of analyzing bite marks
O used to identify any simi- when dentists testify in has the benefits of creating
G larities in shape, position- court, to show that there is accurate means of measur-
Y ing and so on and forth sufficient identification ing physical parameters
(Bowers & Johansen, value to reach a result. of crime scene evidence,
2004). The methods typi- These are all meticulously corrects common pho-
cally used include the made to scale to be able to tographic distortion and
older ones for example provide rigorous and accu- size discrepancies, helps
hand tracing the teeth rate comparison results to eliminate any examiner
perimeters on clear ac- (Bowers & Johansen, subjectivity, betters the
etate, then Xeroxing the 2004). control of image visualiza-
dental casts and then trac- tion, standardizes com-
ing them on acetate too. Recently, digital imaging parison procedures, helps
The dental cast teeth are software and image cap- to create reproducibility of
then pushed into wax and ture devices have created a results between separate
more advanced and accu- examiners and is ideal for
41
