NCJ Number
171926
Journal
Journal of Forensic Identification Volume: 47 Issue: 3 Dated: (May-June 1997) Pages: 264-273
Date Published
1997
Length
10 pages
Annotation
This paper presents a case study in which a suspect confessed to biting off a portion of a victim's ear; bite-mark evidence was used to exclude the suspect.
Abstract
The crime occurred in April 1994. The victim was an off-duty police constable in Canada. He and his female friend were driving home. A group of pedestrians who were leaving a local tavern impeded their path. Someone kicked the constable's car. He left his vehicle to check for damage. Four men punched and kicked him and pinned him to the ground. He felt someone biting his left ear. The attackers fled. Hospital personnel cleaned the ear but did not collect saliva. The ear stump and severed fragment were photographed. Police learned the names of four suspects. One suspect gave a lengthy confession; the others denied guilt. Certain factors caused the suspect's confession to be questioned; these included the confessor's lack of a criminal record and the lengthy criminal record of another suspect. In addition, police investigating another crime learned that the first suspect might be taking the rap for the other offender, knowing that he would receive a minimal sentence as a first-time offender. The analysis of the available dental evidence was used to disprove the suspect's statement. This evidence, in turn, cast suspicion on another suspect who had a previous conviction for a similar offense. Subsequent analysis of all the available evidence created a strong circumstantial case and led the second suspect to plead guilty. The forensic evidence did not make a positive identification of the perpetrator possible, but it was useful in excluding the suspect who had confessed to the crime. Photographs