You are on page 1of 7

A bitemark has been defined as ‘a pattern officers, and during sporting activities, such as rugby

produced by human or animal dentitions and associated football.


structures in any substance capable of being marked by
these means’ (Clark 1992). Bitemarks can also be self-inflicted, such as
during a fall onto the face, or during an epileptic fit etc.
This section will only be concerned with
bitemarks made on human skin, and not inanimate Where bitemarks have been inflicted in an
objects. The analysis of bitmarks remains a considerable attempt to draw suspicion on somebody else, the marks
challenge to forensic odontologists (forensic dentists), are to be distributed over areas of the body that are
and this section will provide only an outline of the accessible to the biter’s mouth – and in common with
subject. other wounds of self-infliction, they are more likely to be
superficial wounds.
When faced with a potential bitemark, it is
important firstly to recognise it as such, so that steps can Areas of the body most likely to bitten during
be taken to maximise the chances of collecting as much assaults
evidence as possible before the mark’s characteristics
(Adapted from Knight 1996; Clark 1992; Vale and
change, and for the appropriate personnel to be
Noguchi 1983; Freeman et al 2005)
contacted so that expert examination of the mark takes
place as soon as possible. Breasts (e.g. sexually motivated assault)
Arms
A bitemark can also be thought of as a form of
Legs
‘tool mark’ – a term used in forensic science to describe a
Face/ head
mark made by an object or implement which can be
Abdomen
analysed to provide some information about the
Back
characteristics of that which made it.
Shoulder
Other authors (Gall et al 2003) classify bitemarks Buttocks
as examples of ‘crush’ injuries, where each tooth Female genitalia
compresses the skin and soft tissues, crushing them. This Hands/ fingers
action leaves indentations and/ or breaks in the skin. Chest
Ears/ nose
Marks made on skin (from teeth) during Neck
punching are termed ‘reverse bitmarks’. It is these Male genitalia
wounds that carry a high risk of infection, and joint
involvement, and must be thoroughly examined and Children often bite each other, and in a nursery
irrigated prior to any definitive treatment. school setting, the teacher usually knows who the biting
children are and will have experience of hearing a
Bitemarks can provide useful evidence in cases scream, and seeing the telltale rounded marks appear.
of assault (particularly in cases of Non Accidental Injury
(NAI cases) – the evidence is of a comparative nature, The Welsh Child Protection Systematic Review
and this section will outline the means by which this Group carried out a systematic review of the literature in
evidence can be collected and analysed. order to answer the question 'can we identify abusive
bites on children?'. They 5 out of 149 papers which met
Bitemarks may also provide a source of assailant the inclusion criteria (confirmed abusive bites), and
DNA - assessment of these injuries must therefore take although these papers described the general
place after collection of biological trace evidence, where characteristics of a bite, there was a paucity of data
relevant (Sweet et al 1997). regarding the likely location and pattern of abusive bites
in children (Kemp et al 2006).
Bitemarks are said to be seen relatively
commonly (Knight 1996), and most commonly in the The marks left by children’s teeth are much
context of sexually motivated assault or NAI in children smaller than those made by adults in cases of NAI and
(Mason 2000). They are also seen in attacks on police the inter-canine distance is usually approximately >2.5 -
3.0 cm in children (2.5 - 4.5 cm in adults). (See Wikipedia
for a discussion of the deciduous and permanent
dentitions)

However, there is considerable variation


between the ability of forensic odontologists/ dentists
and lay personnel (such as social workers and police
officers) to recognise bitemarks made by children as
opposed to adults, and so this arbitrary size based
evaluation of a mark is highly speculative (Nathanson
2000, Gall et al 2003, Wynne 2003 and Whittaker et al
1998)

Dental characteristics of a human bite (Kemp et al 2006)

Bitemarks can be considered to be a spectrum of


injuries ranging from a ‘suction’ mark, through marks
indicating increasing violence ranging from bruising
with no indentations to deep lacerations made by
penetrating teeth (Knight 1996 and Clark 1992).

The 'bitemark severity index' has been


developed by Pretty (2006 and 2007) in an attempt to
standardise bitemark terminology. Bitemarks at each
end of the scale are unlikely to possess unique
identifying characteristics, whilst those in the middle of
the scale are likely to present the 'highest level of Human bitemark severity and significance scale
significance', enabling the exclusion and inclusion of (Pretty 2006 and 2007)
potential suspects.
Suction marks ('love bite' or 'hickey') are seen as
a collection of punctate haemorrhages (small petechiae
to larger bruises, depending upon the degree of suction
applied). These are bruises resulting in leakage of blood
from small vessels caused by the combination of suction
and pressure of tissues being forced into the biters
mouth and compressed against the palate and/ or
incisors. Suction marks, when present are said to be
diagnostic of a human bite (Clark 1992).

As well as bruising, a range of other injuries can


be seen to make up a bitemark – abrasions or ‘parallel
scrape’ marks from sharp or uneven teeth moving over
the skin surface, and lacerations from deep tooth
penetration into the epidermis/ dermis. Amputations of
body parts (for example ears and noses) can also occur.

The human bitemark is classically a circular or


oval mark (bruise) with central sparing, ranging from
that made by a limited part of the dental arcade (for
example marks left by the anterior teeth from canine to
canine of the upper and lower jaws, separated by gaps at
each side), or a more forcible bite leaving 2 concave
‘bows’ (with the concavities facing each other) with gaps Does the person suffer any from any condition liable to
at each end and having a suction mark in the middle. have influenced the appearance of a bite mark/ bruise?
(e.g. Bleeding diatheses or clotting disorder etc)
Lower incisors tend to anchor the skin whilst
upper anterior teeth bite down onto the tissue. There The examination
may therefore be a static line or curved mark left by the
As with all injuries, the wound should be
lower incisors and canines (these incisors are all the
described (areas of bruising, abrasions and lacerations
same width, unlike those of the upper jaw – a useful
etc) and should preferably be sketched.
feature in distinguishing upper and lower jaws) with a
more dynamic mark left by the teeth of the upper jaw, Photographs should be taken with and without
with scrape marks present. scales, and preferably with the bitten part being held in
the same position as it was in when it was bitten.
Where the skin is bruised during the biting
process, the marks made will distort over time, as the At this point, if the history and examination do
bruising diffuses into surrounding soft tissues. Speed of suggest a human bite (see below for the features of
examination is therefore of the essence, before distortion animal bites), a forensic physician should be contacted,
obscures individual teeth marks within the bite. and a request made for expert examination of the
Abrasions within the mark, however, retain their wound, together with a forensic odontologist (if
morphology, and can be useful features for the forensic available).
odontologist to find.
Most changes to the morphology of a bitemark
The clarity of the bitemark is affected by the occur in the first 24 hours, but indentations will be lost
location of the body part being bitten, in particular within hours, and so the maximum amount of evidence
whether the area is curved, and its degree of flexibility. to be gained from a bite mark must be secured as
quickly as possible after the assault (Clark 1992 p.157).
Bitemarks are usually formed during a highly
dynamic process – the biter and the person being bitten Trace evidence collection
will be moving about during the assault, and this leads
to a degree of distortion. The forensic physician can then supervise
additional procedures, such as swabbing the wound
Bitemarks may therefore not present themselves for DNA (buccal cells)/ serological evidence (secretor
as regular curved marks, but as a complex wound status – ABO antigens corresponding to the blood group
featuring multiple arcades, bruises and abrasions. are secreted by 76% of the population in
their saliva). Bowers (2006) points out that such evidence
There are several well described mimics which
may be of vital importance where bite-mark evidence is
should be borne in mind when faced with a potential
subsequently challenged by defendants.
bitemark, including defibrillator pad marks, the bottom
of a glass bottle, the heel of a shoe, jewellery and Swabs can either be taken by using sterile
children’s toys (Clement 2003 and Clark 1992). cotton-tipped swab sticks, or moistened cigarette papers
placed between microscope slides prior to submission to
The clinical history
a forensic science laboratory. Control swabs are taken
When faced with a person who has allegedly from the opposite side of the body to that of the bite
been bitten, a history of the bite/ assault should be (Mason 2000, Knight 1996 and Girardin et al 2003).
ascertained;
Photography
When was the bite inflicted?
The expert examination will also involve the
Which part(s) of the body were bitten?
Which position(s) were the bitten parts in at the time? photographing of the wound from several different
Did the bite take place through clothing? Has this angles, using a selection of scales (such as the American
clothing been submitted for examination already? Board of Forensic Odontology (ABFO) ABFO No. 2
Has the skin been washed since the assault? scale), and with the body part in different positions.
Photographs taken from a distance to show the The response of the body to injury can also
relationship of the mark with the rest of the body are distort the appearance of the bitemark – for example
useful, as well as the close up images. bruising and swelling from oedema etc.

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.

The process of bitemark comparison evaluations


involves superimposition of the suspect’s dentition onto
the bite mark. The aim is to identify sufficient
correspondence between the sizes and shapes of the
teeth of an accused with the features of the bitemark,
taking account of the limitations caused by distortion.

Unique features such as missing teeth,


abnormally aligned teeth or damaged teeth provide
particularly useful reference points (Sheasby and
MacDonald 2001 pp.77-78).

Features of a suspect’s dentition useful in bite mark


analysis

(Adapted from Knight 1996 and Clark 1992) Reconstruction of bitemark

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;

Dog attack puncture wound(s) (caused by canine tooth)

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).

The feline bite is much shorter and more


rounded than a dog bite, and they have small round
puncture marks, and are often associated with parallel
scratches from ‘clawing’.

Rodent bitemarks consist of long grooves caused


by thick ‘chisel’ shape cutting edges of the central
incisors. These marks are often seen on bodies recovered
after some time post-mortem rather than in live persons,
but could conceivably be seen on the bodies of neglected
infants living in unsanitary housing conditions.

Wounds caused by wild animals tend to be


more severe – for example grizzly bears have been
known to cause severe ‘scalping’ injuries and large cats
severe neck wounds accompanied by deep incised
wounds from claws (Wyatt 2003).

You might also like