Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Serial photographs are useful in illustrating the changes Bitemark distortion can also occur at later stages
of the mark over time, as some aspects of the mark may of the evaluation of the mark – for example, the process
become clearer (Wynne 2003). of photography can result in huge distortion of the
appearance of the mark.
Examination of victim's dentition
The position of the bitten body part during the
The odontologist will also supervise the assault should be replicated for the photography, and
examination of the victim’s dentition (with or without where this is not possible, some authors have even
the taking of teeth impressions) and the taking of suggested that any further analysis of that mark is
bitemark impressions (for example with fast setting meaningless (Sheasby and MacDonald 2001).
rubber or silicone based materials) for later comparison
with a suspect’s dentition. The photography of bite marks and the use of
various scales is a complex subject area, with no
Distortion of bitemarks consensus as to the correct approach. Each forensic
One of the main drawbacks with the analysis of odontologist has to justify his/ her evaluation and
bitemarks is the effect of distortion on the mark, and the conclusions, and will be open to cross-examination on
subsequent difficulties matching the mark with a the limitations of such an approach.
suspect’s dentition.
The general principle is to obtain a 1: 1
Distortion can occur at different stages of the representation of the mark with minimum distortion.
bite, and it’s examination and evaluation (Sheasby and
Some authors favour 2 rigid scales to be used at
MacDonald 2001 and Clark 1992).
right angles to each other, whilst others prefer the use of
Distortion of the mark can occur during the scales following natural curves of the bitten part
biting process itself (primary distortion), which is a (Robinson 2000 and Mason 2000). Others favour a
dynamic process, and thus the degree of distortion is mixture of rigid scales aligned to the plane of the camera
proportional to the degree of movement. film with a flexible scale following the curve of the bitten
part (Clark 1992).
Each episode of contact between the teeth of the
biter and the victim’s skin represents a unique event, Ultraviolet photography may also be used to
which will produce a unique mark. A single assault may pick up detail not capable of being seen with the naked
therefore result in bitemarks that vary in appearance, eye. This technique can demonstrate past injuries due to
even though they have been caused by the same abnormal pigmentation at the site of a previous injury,
dentition. but this ability can also cause problems of interpretation
as well (Clark 1992).
Because skin is elastic, and the amount of elasticity
Comparison of bite mark and suspect dentition
varies with age and body part, the second Comparison
of bite mark and suspect dentition In order to make any useful interpretation of a
bitemark, one must have something to compare it to.
aspect of primary distortion is a reflection of the
Where a suspect is identified, the forensic odontologist
response of skin in various body locations to being
examines the suspect’s dentition and prepares
bitten.
impressions of the biting surfaces at different angles as
Not only is skin extensibility highly variable, but well as models of the entire dentition.
thickness varies from site to site, and the presence of
The power to obtain such impressions is found
support (i.e. bones) beneath the skin surface all act to
in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) as
modify the response of a particular body part to biting.
amended by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act
1994.
Bitemark comparison evidence is highly Any prominent teeth
controversial, and much of this stems from the lack of
agreed standards of conformity (as exists for fingerprint Biting pattern at various angles including bite
evidence) and the potential for distortion at all stages of overhang
the evidence collection and evaluation process, as
Traditionally, the process
detailed above.
of superimposition involved inking the occlusal surfaces
Assessment of the probability of a suspected of the suspect’s teeth (on a model) and marking the teeth
person’s dentition making the bite mark involves a ‘bite’ pattern onto an acetate sheet. This sheet would
subjective judgement, and requires considerable then be placed over a true 1:1 photograph of the
experience and expertise (Whittaker et al 1998). bitemark, and the sheet moved around to see if there
was any match between the two (Clark 1992 and Knight
Some argue that the identification process is one 1996).
of exclusion only – i.e. one can only state categorically
that a particular suspect’s dentition could not have With the advent of faster computer processing
created the bitemark under investigation. A positive ability, photographic software packages such as Adobe’s
identification of a suspect from bitemark evidence thus Photoshop® has taken centre stage in the ‘overlay’
falls into the realm of opinion evidence – a finding of process (Clement 2003). Scaled photographs of both
conformity by the court therefore depends upon the suspect dentition and bitemark can be superimposed by
credibility and weight attached to the evidence of the a relative ‘fading in and out’ of one over the other. The
expert witness, and of course the skill of the advocacy process can be documented at each stage, and easily
(Mason 2000). reproduced, without harming the evidence itself.
Shape of the dental arch (any rotations, abnormal Source: Visible Proofs
positions, gaps or missing teeth)
These methods rely on the superimposition of
Number of teeth present in each jaw (odontogram) 2D photographs representing 3D structures, and are
therefore inherently inaccurate. Thali et al (2003) and
Presence of dentures/ sharp denture clasps
Blackwell et al (2007) describe the use of a 3D-
Distortion of occlusive surfaces during biting (occlusal CAD approach to the superimposition process, where
registration) the bite mark is photographed from different angles and
software used to build a 3D virtual model of the mark.
Occlusal level of teeth within the jaw
The same is carried out for the suspect dentition,
Broken/ fractured teeth (particularly incisal fractures and the 2 ‘virtual models’ can be manipulated in relation
that may be responsible for abrasions)
to each other in virtual space. The process of the bite approximately 10 to 20 dog bites are fatal (Brogan et al
being performed can be evaluated, as the relative 1995).
positions of each tooth can be assessed at different biting
depths. Canine teeth 'anchor' the victim, whilst other
teeth bite and tear tissues (the 'hole and tear'
From their work, it is clear that most important appearance).
area of the bite mark for the evaluation process is that
made by the anterior teeth, where there is the least De Munnynck and Van de Voorde (2002)
amount of tissue expansion. As the bite progresses, there reviewed fatal injuries caused by dogs, and indicated
is increasing distortion and then the lateral teeth make that the features to be considered 'pathognomonic' for
their marks. dog bites are;
Having established that a mark is indeed a wound with ragged and irregular edges - 'stretch
bitemark, one must also determine whether the mark lacerations' (caused by other teeth in the process of
was made by a human (child or adult) or an animal. biting, shaking and tearing and sometimes including
avulsed tissue with irregular borders resembling a
In a live victim, this matter will usually be dental arch outline)
simple to ascertain – from the history. However, in a
young child, or unconscious person, the true nature of claw marks (multiple, parallel, linear scratches or drying
the injury may not be immediately apparent. scuff abrasions)
Domestic animals are implicated in the majority Biting force is variable (depending upon the
of bites – particularly large breeds of dog (pit bull breed of dog), ranging from 310 kPa - over 30,000 kPa -
terriers and German Shepherds etc) – and they are resulting in potentially devastating injury and tissue
usually known to the victim (either a family pet or that devitalisation. De Munnynck and Van de Voorde (2002)
of a neighbour). advise that vertical forces exceeding 450 pounds per
square inch (31 x 104 N/m2) have been measured
Besser (2007) points out, however, that there is during a dog attack - sufficient to penetrate sheet metal.
some evidence that most common dog bites are caused
by Staffordshire bull terriers, Jack Russell terriers, Children (particularly boys aged 1-6 years) and
medium sized mongrels as well as Alsatians (German the elderly are most vulnerable, and the dog usually
Shepherds) - breeds of dog nor covered by bites for territorial reasons.
the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 - prohibiting pit bull
The head and neck are targeted in particular,
terriers, the Japanese tosa, the Argentine dogo and
and Brogan et al (1995) identified a large percentage of
the fila Braseleiro).
child dog bite victims to have suffered serious head,
Morgan and Palmer (2007) indicate that each neck and facial injuries including fractures and deep
year, 250,000 people who have been bitten by dogs neck injuries requiring surgical exploration.
attend trauma units in the UK. Besser (2007) indicates
They urge hospital doctors to consider the
that 70,000 people attended UK Accident and
possibility of underlying fractures and damage to deep
Emergency units for dog bites in 2002, and that many
structures whenever they are faced with a child dog bite
were the result of attacks on children by the family pet
victim.
in the home. 4133 patients were admitted to hospital in
England in 2006, as a result of injuries caused by dog In dog bites, the anterior segment of the dental
bites. arch is much narrower than in a human, (giving a ‘U’
shaped appearance as opposed to the rounded shape of
There are approximately 1-2 million animal bites
the human bitemark) and the canines are more conical,
annually in the USA, and this is thought to be an
curved and much larger (Clark 1992, Gall et al 2003).
underestimate (Clark et al 1991). Of these,
Dogs (and cats) have asymmetric maxillary and
mandibular arches, and the canine lower arch is
narrower and shorter than the upper. However, the
shapes of the arches are breed dependent, and so the
shape of the wound will also vary according to breed
(Clark et al 1991).