Bitemarks 313
14.1.2.7 Florida v. Bundy, 1979 and Florida v. Bundy, 1980
In January 1978, a Sunday night at the Chi Omega House, Florida State
University, Tallahassee, two coeds were bludgeoned to death and two others
survived their attacks. On the same night at a nearby home another female
victim was attacked as she slept. At autopsy, bitemark evidence, in the form
of excised skin, was removed from the body of one of the victims. The fol-
lowing Saturday, the tissue was analyzed, photographed, and preserved in
formalin. Although the tissue had not been optimally preserved—the tissue
was not attached to a retaining ring—it was evident that this was a human
bitemark and that there was a pattern suggesting the biter had crooked or
broken teeth. Months went by without production of any photographs of the
bitemark with a ruler or scale in place. The suspect in the case, Theodore
Robert Bundy, a serial killer from the State of Washington who had escaped
prison in Colorado and moved to Tallahassee, Florida, was held on suspi-
cions of these two murders and the assault on the three other female victims.
Prior to the grand jury indictment of Mr. Bundy, only one photograph out of
thousands taken at the scene and during autopsy was produced that included
a ruler held near the pattern, meaning that the bitemark could be sized. The
state attorney, Larry Simpson, realized the significance of the only physi-
cal evidence in this case: the bitemark. In order to obtain impressions and
photo graphs of Mr. Bundy’s teeth, it was determined that a search warrant as
opposed to a court order would be the path that the prosecution was to take.
The warrant documented in thirteen pages the scope of the examination to
be undertaken and the history of Mr. Bundy prior to and after the homicides
in Tallahassee. No defense attorney was present when the warrant was issued
or during the dental examination of Mr. Bundy’s teeth. The search warrant
and its execution were tightly guarded secrets. Once the material from the
suspect had been obtained, the state attorney wanted to affirm that bitemark
evidence was accepted in courts throughout the United States. Consequently,
independent evaluations of the Bundy material were done by Dr. Lowell
Levine in New York and Dr. Norman “Skip” Sperber in California. All
agreed independently that the bite pattern left on the victim was of eviden-
tiary value, that it showed not only class but individual characteristics of a
double bitemark. They also agreed that the teeth of Mr. Bundy were unusual
and distinctive and more likely than not left the bitemark. A weeklong evi-
dentiary hearing was held in Tallahassee, at which time a circuit court judge
heard evidence as to bitemark evidence and ruled as to its admissibility in the
courts of the State of Florida, that is, a Frye hearing. Drs. Souviron, Levine,
and Sperber all testified at the evidentiary hearing in Tallahassee. In a change
of venue the trial was moved to Miami. The proceedings began in July 1979.
At trial the defense called Dr. Duane T. Devore, a board-certified forensic
odontologist. His testimony was that Bundy’s teeth were “not that unique”