NCJ Number
83186
Journal
Identification News Volume: 32 Issue: 2 Dated: (May 1982) Pages: 10-13
Date Published
1982
Length
4 pages
Annotation
The benefits and limitations of bite marks as evidence in criminal cases are explained, and techniques for securing bite-mark evidence are described.
Abstract
Bite marks on human skin are limited in their evidence capability because skin is not a good medium for receiving or preserving accurate teeth impressions. Bite mark evidence will be the most valuable when the bite mark accurately records the biter's teeth and the teeth recorded show unique features. In such cases, evidence may eliminate a suspect or indicate, with reasonable medical certainty, that a suspect made the bite mark. Bite marks most frequently occur in crimes involving violent assaults sexual activity, and child abuse. Bite marks should be noted and photographed by the lay persons initially involved in investigation. The forensic odontologist should then be involved as early as possible. The odontologist should take full-body photographs, followed by closeups, using a scale or ruler in the photographs. If the bite area has not been washed or contaminated, evidence should be collected for saliva trace studies. In most cases, the odontologist will make detailed impressions (casts) of the skin surface to record three-dimensional imprints. Sections of the bite mark may be removed for microscopic study to determine when the bite occurred in relation to the time of death. A suspects' teeth may be studied with the suspect's consent or by court order. The teeth and dental casts are first grossly compared to the bite mark. If the time interval has been short, it may be possible to take the dental casts directly to the body for comparison. If this is not possible, the suspect's casts may be compared to life-size photographs of the bite mark. Transparent overlays may be used. Photographic illustrations and five bibliographic listings are provided.