Page 43 - Forensic News Journal Oct Nov 2017

Bite Mark Forensic Evidence

described for example if it CRIMINAL JUSTICE dicially accepted in the

is round, ovoid, crescent, SYSTEM United States since 1954
irregular etc. The color of (Doyle vs. State). It was
the bite mark is also im- The criminal justice sys- only in 1975, that bite

F portant to note, e.g. red, tem has long endorsed mark evidence gave us the

O purple. odontology as a major Marx standard of admis-
R source of valuable aid. sibility (People vs. Marx,
E The size is also to be not- Apart from identifying 1975). The identification

N ed, whether it is vertical perpetrators of crime, of a biter has been use-
S or horizontal and prefer- odontology has also ful and instrumental in

I ably noted in the metric helped in the identification criminal investigations
C system. The injury can be of unidentified persons especially in cases of ho-
a petechial hemorrhage, (FBI Laboratory, 1989 as micide; sexual abuse and

M contusion, abrasion, lac- cited in Brennan, Gray- child abuse cases (Pretty
E eration, incision, avulsion Ray, & Hensley, 1997). & Sweet, 2000 as cited

T or artifact. Other informa- in Bowers & Johansen,
H tion that is to be gathered Differences in teeth are as 2001). The USA has quite
O if possible is whether the different as those marks a developed system of

D skin surface of indented or found by other tools and dental records based on
O smooth (Bowers & Johan- fingerprints. Though a per- the Universal system and

L sen, 2004). Since the skin son’s teeth may look the this helps considerably
O is elastic, and depending same, they are different in especially in identifying
G on the victim some bite size, shape, arrangement, ‘John/ Jane Doe’ victims

Y marks may last for hours wear, damage, age, qual- (O’Connor, 2006).
while others may last for ity and quantity and habits
days. All bite marks alter of the individual (Levine, The forensic weight and

themselves as time elaps- 1972 ac cited in Brennan, value of the bite mark is
es, therefore it is impor- Gray- Ray, & Hensley, based on the characteris-
tant to photograph the bite 1997). The FBI Laborato- tics of the bite marks that

marks as consistent inter- ry in 1989 has concluded are similar to the defen-
vals over a period of hours that dental uniqueness is dant’s. Most dentists’

and days as recommended beyond any reasonable though, rely on a ‘rule in’
by the ABFO (O’Connor, doubt. or ‘rule out’ fashion and
2006). therefore provide a weak

Bite mark analysis and linkage. So at this stage,
BITE MARKS AND evidence has been ju- the forensic weight of this

43