BITE MARK EVIDENCE
BITEMARK HISTORY
In struggles between assailants and victims, there is a tendency for teeth to be used
as a weapon. Sometimes it is the only defensive tactic for a victim to inflict serious
injury on the assailant. It is a well known fact, that in sexual attacks including
sexual homicide, rape and child sexual abuse, the assailants more often than not
bite their victims. This can be viewed as an expression of dominance, rage and
animalistic behaviour. Not many people have the view that teeth can be such
violent weapons (Sweet & Pretty, 2001).
Early recognition of bite marks is seen in old English Law where ‘member proper
for defence; included arms, legs and anterior teeth’. The first bite mark case in the
United States was the famous Salem Witch Trials, in 1692. Rev. Burroughs who
was convicted and hanged used to bite his victims. During the trial his bite marks
and of other people were compared to the victim’s marks. The judges readily
accepted the bite marks as evidence. In 1870, A.I Robinson was suspected of
murdering his mistress. Five bite marks were found on her arm. The bite mark
evidence did not hold and Robinson was acquitted. Despite the negative outcome
of the Robinson case, by 1890 bite mark evidence started to be recognized in
scientific circles (Vale as cited Dorion, 2004).
Prior to 1950, the number of cases where bite marks were used as evidence was
small when compared to today. A large proportion was reported in Europe and
Japan, but most cases originated in the USA. In 2002, over 400 forensic
odontologists were listed in the American Academy of Forensic Sciences (AAFS)
(Dorion, 2004).
A major development in bite mark investigations in the USA began in 1962 when
courses in forensic odontolgy began at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology
(AFIP) in Washington D.C. The development of forensic odontology was furthered
by the publication of a book in 1966 by Gustafson, called ‘Forensic Odontology’.
This book had a substantial chapter devoted to bite marks and was the first major
work to be published on this subject. Then in 1970, forensic odontology became a
department in the AAFS, and became recognized as a specialty in forensic science.
In 1976, the American Board of Forensic Odontology (ABFO) was organized. This
was a step towards professionalism in the sector of forensic odontology. The
ABFO started to provide a programme of certification in forensic odontology. This
furthered the science of forensic odontology and made it more reliable (Dorion,
2004).
FORENSIC ODONTOLOGISTS
A forensic dentist is not an ordinary dentist; s/he is a board- certified specialist
who deals primarily with bite mark evidence. Although, one does not have to be a
specialist to become an expert witness, it helps to strengthen the validity of the
scientific evidence in court (O’Conner, 2006).
Forensic odontolgy is a branch of forensic medicine that in the interest of justice
deals with dental evidence presented in the courts of law. The work of a forensic
odontologist is to identify human remains through dental records, estimate age of
both living and deceased persons, analysis of bite marks on victims and other
substances such as foodstuffs and presentation of bite mark evidence in court as an
expert witness (Sellar, 2002).
HUMAN BITE MARKS
Of all the components of the human body teeth outlast all other parts after death.
Their durability makes it perfect for identification. Sometimes, they are the only
means of identification left. A clear example is Adolf Hitler’s dental records,
which identified his corpse. It is claimed that no two people have identical teeth.
Unlike fingerprints which remain unchanged, teeth become unique with wear and
tear. For successful identification both ante and post mortem data should be
available, even one tooth can be useful for identification (Evans, 2004).
There are about two hundred different tooth charting methods in the world, which
provide an almost 100 % reliable means of identification. The American approach,
which is known as the Universal system, gives a number to each of the thirty two
adult teeth. Information is then recorded on each tooth according to the five visible
surface of the tooth. With this information, the odontologists can complete a dental
grid, unique to that person (Evans, 2004).
Human bite marks are found when teeth are used as weapons. They can be used as
weapons of anger; weapons of excitement; weapons of control or weapons of
destruction (Lotter, 2008). Bite marks are usually found on the skin of the victim.
Females are usually bitten on the breasts and legs during sexual attacks, while men
are usually bitten on the arms or shoulders and when in defensive postures bites
can be found on the hands and arms (Sweet & Pretty, 2001).
The marks left by the teeth in a person may be used to identify an individual.
Nowadays forensic odontologists have become reasonably skilled at identifying
bite marks and relating it back to the person who has inflicted the mark (Horswell,
2004). A human bite mark is usually described as an elliptical or circular injury
and the differences in size and shape of teeth can sometimes be easily noticed
especially when teeth are missing or prominent (Lotter, 2008). However, a bite
mark is not an overall accurate representation of the teeth; it also depends on the
jaw movement and use of the tongue. The lower jaw is moveable and is the one
that gives the most biting force, while the upper jaw is usually stationery and holds
and stretches the skin (Evans, 2004). The most common type of bite marks are
contusions. Incisions offer the best three dimensional images of the teeth. If
avulsions and artefacts are combined, one can produce a three dimensional image
too. There are seven types of bite marks; haemorrhage which is a small bleeding
spot, abrasion which is an undamaging mark on skin, contusion which is a ruptured
blood vessel bruise, laceration which is punctured or torn skin, avulsion were there
is removal of the skin and artefact were a piece of the body is bitten off. These are
then further divided into four degrees of impression, which when analysed can help
to note what kind of violence was exerted and may be used as aggravating
circumstances.
1. significant pressure
2. first degree pressure
3. violent pressure
4. skin violently torn from body
(O’Conner, 2006).
BITE MARK ANALYSIS
In odontology, for a physical comparison of a bite mark to be successful, the
questioned evidence (Q) photograph of the bite mark must be accurately produced.
It must then be recreated in a life size dimension, and is then called the Known (K)
evidence. After this is done, the plaster cast of the defendant’s teeth are used to
identify any similarities in shape, positioning and so on and forth (Bowers &
Johansen, 2004). The methods typically used include the older ones for example
hand tracing the teeth perimeters on clear acetate, then Xeroxing the dental casts
and then tracing them on acetate too. The dental cast teeth are then pushed into
wax and filled thereafter with metallic powder. After this is done an x-ray film is
used to capture the teeth impression. The direct superimposition of Q and K
photographs are used when dentists testify in court, to show that there is sufficient
identification value to reach a result. These are all meticulously made to scale to be
able to provide rigorous and accurate comparison results (Bowers & Johansen,
2004).
Recently, digital imaging software and image capture devices have created a more
advanced and accurate way to avoid any discrepancies and allows the examiner to
use the computer functions into a microscope for comparison. The computerized
system of analyzing bite marks has the benefits of creating accurate means of
measuring physical parameters of crime scene evidence, corrects common
photographic distortion and size discrepancies, helps to eliminate any examiner
subjectivity, betters the control of image visualization, standardizes comparison
procedures, helps to create reproducibility of results between separate examiners
and is ideal for electronic transmission and archiving (Bowers & Johansen, 2004).
The better the bite mark, the better an expert can make a reliable comparison (O’
Connor, 2006).
The American Board of Forensic Odontology (ABFO) follows bite mark standards
and guidelines. The ABFO provides a list of generally accepted methods that meet
the criteria of the scientific model. This is to help forensic odontology to achieve
the objective of universally acceptable methodology. The ABFO provides
guidance on how to preserve bite mark evidence, which are saliva swabs of bite
site, photographic documentation of the bite site which includes lighting and scale,
obtaining impressions of bite site including victim’s dental impressions, tissue
specimens. Guidelines are also formulated on the evidence collection of suspected
dentition and these include the photographic documentation of the dentition,
clinical examination with extraoral and intraoral considerations and dental
impressions. In 1994 the ABFO indicated that the most widely used methods of
comparing bite mark evidence were; the generation of overlays (acetate), test bite
media such as wax exemplars, Styrofoam and so on and comparison techniques
mostly using acetate.
All ABFO diplomats are expected to use the most analytical standards and
methods suggested. Certain vital information must always be recorded and noted.
These are done both in the case of a living victim as a deceased individual.
Demographics include details such as name of victim, case number and date of
examination, person to contact, age of victim, sex and name of examiner. The
location of bite mark, which includes the anatomical location, description of
surface contour and whether it is flat, curved or irregular and a description of the
tissue characteristics with details on the underlying bone, cartilage, muscle and fat
structure and if the skin is fixed or mobile. The shape of the bite mark must be
described for example if it is round, ovoid, crescent, irregular etc. The colour of the
bite mark is also important to note, e.g. red, purple.
The size is also to be noted, whether it is vertical or horizontal and preferably
noted in the metric system. The injury can be a petechial hemorrhage, contusion,
abrasion, laceration, incision, avulsion or artifact. Other information that is to be
gathered if possible is whether the skin surface of indented or smooth (Bowers &
Johansen, 2004). Since the skin is elastic, and depending on the victim some bite
marks may last for hours while others may last for days. All bite marks alter
themselves as time elapses, therefore it is important to photograph the bite marks
as consistent intervals over a period of hours and days as recommended by the
ABFO (O’Connor, 2006).
BITE MARKS AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
The criminal justice system has long endorsed odontology as a major source of
valuable aid. Apart from identifying perpetrators of crime, odontology has also
helped in the identification of unidentified persons (FBI Laboratory, 1989 as cited
in Brennan, Gray- Ray, & Hensley, 1997).
Differences in teeth are as different as those marks found by other tools and
fingerprints. Though a person’s teeth may look the same, they are different in size,
shape, arrangement, wear, damage, age, quality and quantity and habits of the
individual (Levine, 1972 ac cited in Brennan, Gray- Ray, & Hensley, 1997). The
FBI Laboratory in 1989 has concluded that dental uniqueness is beyond any
reasonable doubt.
Bite mark analysis and evidence has been judicially accepted in the United States
since 1954 (Doyle vs. State). It was only in 1975, that bite mark evidence gave us
the Marx standard of admissibility (People vs. Marx, 1975). The identification of a
biter has been useful and instrumental in criminal investigations especially in cases
of homicide; sexual abuse and child abuse cases (Pretty & Sweet, 2000 as cited in
Bowers & Johansen, 2001). The USA has quite a developed system of dental
records based on the Universal system and this helps considerably especially in
identifying ‘John/ Jane Doe’ victims (O’Connor, 2006).
The forensic weight and value of the bite mark is based on the characteristics of the
bite marks that are similar to the defendant’s. Most dentists’ though, rely on a ‘rule
in’ or ‘rule out’ fashion and therefore provide a weak linkage. So at this stage, the
forensic weight of this evidence can be argued (Bowers & Johansen, 2004).
Forensic odontology is still new to criminal justice officials and its success in the
criminal justice field has never been researched as yet. In the meantime two
leading experts in the field, Dr. Haynes and Dr. West have been doing well by
using ultra violet lighting to detect human bite marks on rape victims. With this
method they have helped to capture and convict ten rapists. Bite marks in the
investigation and prosecution of rapists is vital, since many rapists bite their
victims. Bite mark evidence can be as conclusive as both DNA and fingerprint
evidence in the case of rape. Valuable information can be obtained from the
analysis of the bite mark. Odontology has proved to be exceptionally accurate in
violent rape cases, since bite marks are mostly present in violent rape cases
(Haynes and West, 1992 as cited in Brennan, Gray- Ray, & Hensley, 1997).
It must be kept in mind that bite marks are not limited to skin. Teeth leave
impressions on a number of things and if these are found at the crime scene they
can help in the investigation, for e.g. a piece of chewing gum or food like cheese or
chocolate (Geberth, 2006). As far back as 1906 in the UK, two burglars were
convicted after one of them bit a piece of cheese which was found on the crime
scene. The prosecutors then showed that imprint matched exactly his front teeth
(Evans, 2004).
The quality of the physical evidence, the variable nature of skin bruising and the
inability of dentists to accurately and scientifically prove that teeth are unique,
create problems in the determination of positive identification to be used in court
(Bowers, 2004). Legal challenges for bite mark evidence are usually two:
reliability of analysis and whether it violates constitutional rights (Stimson &
Mertz, 1997).
Though there are strong arguments that sustain that each human has a unique
dental profile and is discernable in bite marks this has not been proven valid by any
experiments and thus causes serious problems when presenting bite mark evidence
in the courts of justice. The amount and degree of detail of the bite mark may vary
from case to case and if it is assumed that human dentition is unique it is enough to
use as forensic evidence. In the case where it is not known whether this
individuality is specific, the most a bite mark can do is to exclude or include a
person, as bite mark evidence is not sufficient to get a conviction (Bowers, 2004).
More research is needed to prove beyond doubt that each human dentition is
unique (Sweet & Pretty, 2001).
Other problems that are encountered with expert witnesses in court are that it is
high unlikely that their qualifications will ever be challenged on stand and most of
the time odontologists work only on a part time basis with a law enforcement
agency. Another issue is the problem if a standard protocol. In this particular field,
specialists tend to use their own methods. There is also the digital divide, while
others use the older methods (acetate). When comparing results this causes
difficulties since the methods used are not the same and therefore blind reviews
reflect poorly on the professionalism of odontologists (O’Connor, 2006).
FAMOUS BITEMARK EVIDENCE CASES
The most famous case where bite mark evidence led to a conviction is definitely
the case of the serial killer Ted Bundy. Nowadays when referring to bite mark
evidence, people still talk about the Bundy case. Bundy was never caught until the
expert testimony of Dr. Sauviron secured a conviction and subsequent execution.
In the trial, photographic evidence of the bite marks and Bundy’s teeth were
shown. The acetate of the bite mark was then placed over the photo of Bundy’s
teeth leaving no doubt whose teeth had left the impression.
Nobody is certain how many people Bundy killed between 1973 and 1978, but he
was finally convicted for the murder of Lisa Levy of Florida. This was done
because of the bites that were found on her body. Forensic bite mark analysis
showed beyond doubt that the impressions were left by Bundy’s irregular teeth
(Lotter, 2008).
There were other cases were men were unfortunately convicted because of
erroneous bite mark identification evidence. Ray Krone was jailed for ten years for
a crime he had not committed. A waitress, in Phoenix was murdered in 1991 and
Krone was sentenced for her murder. After DNA testing was done, Krone was free
and the true perpetrator was identified. Forensic DNA was not available at the time
of the prosecution and only a bite mark found on the victim’s breast connected
Krone to the murder. Even though the evidence was very weak, he was convicted
because of the bite mark a forensic odontologist had said matched the dentition of
Krone. After an appeal, the tank top the victim was wearing was re examined and
salvia was found that did not belong to Krone (Unknown Author, 2008). In 1992,
Roy Brown was convicted of stabbing, beating, biting and strangling a social
worker in New York. The case rested on one piece of evidence, a bite mark. A
local dentist testified that they matched Brown’s teeth. He has been released in
January 2007. DNA testing has proved that the saliva left in the bite mark did not
match Brown’s. Other inconsistencies were that Brown has two missing front
teeth, but the expert testified that these could have been filled by twisting the skin
(Santos, 2007).
Unfortunately there were cases were the prosecution used bite mark evidence to
secure convictions, even if the person was innocent. With DNA and other evidence
becoming more widely available, most cases have been overturned where justice
had not been served. Bite mark evidence must be used carefully and the over
zealousness of prosecutors in acquiring a conviction must not interfere with
evidence. In fact, in 1995 forensic odontologists have started to avoid using the
term ‘match’ to eliminate errors, since other evidence should be produced together
with bite marks (Santos, 2007). CSI effects on the general public has exaggerated
the accurateness of bite mark evidence. Bite mark evidence can determine whether
a subject can be excluded or whether the suspect could be the one who inflicted the
bite. More research is needed since bite mark evidence on its own does not always
produce conclusive results.
