338 Forensic dentistryguidelines^35 and in Bitemark Evidence.^36 Instead, this chapter will focus on
practical, legal, and philosophical aspects. In an ideal world the forensic odon-
tologist would be involved with a case involving suspected bitemarks from
the beginning, at the scene, during evidence collection, evidence analysis ,
and continuing to the courtroom. We do not live in an ideal world. In the real
world the odontologist may not be contacted until much later and may be
influenced, positively or negatively, by many factors, including his or her lack
of experience, ego, and enthusiasm, to be part of the investi gative team in a
criminal case involving bitemarks. Case management begins with the first
contact from the agency or person soliciting information from the forensic
odontologist. Case management is critical during evidence collection and
analysis, and continues through the trial and the final judicial appeal. The
odontologist may be asked to review photographic evidence of a pattern
injury taken by a crime scene investigator untrained in bitemark evidence
collection. The only record of the injury pattern may have been photographed
with non-state-of-the-art equipment. Images may have been collected with a
Polaroid or other snapshot-type camera, perhaps without a scale or ruler, and
at a distance and angle that precludes proper analysis. Lighting or flash equip-
ment may be substandard or lacking. Alternately, the injury may have been
photographed by emergency room or hospital personnel. Medical interven-
tion may have distorted or even obliterated portions of the patterned injury.
The odontologist must obtain as much information as possible to improve
his or her chance of arriving at a conclusion that has scientific validity. This
includes but is not limited to all scene photo graphs, even those in which the
patterned injury is not visible. If the victim survives the attack, photographs
of the injury should be taken as soon as possible, with follow-up photography
during the healing process. If the victim does not survive, photo graphs of the
patterned injury should be made at the scene, at the hospital, and at the morgue
prior to the embalming and internment. If the body is later exhumed, proce-
dures that preceded burial must be considered. In summary, the odontolo-
gist must review all available evidence, especially all photo graphic evidence.
The likelihood of making an error in interpretation is inversely proportional
to the abundance of the available evidence. Forensic odontologists may be
asked during their careers to evaluate potential bitemark evidence on both
living and deceased persons, including embalmed and exhumed bodies.
If the bitten person is living, he or she may also be an eyewitness, capable of
identifying the biter. As in all eyewitness accounts, this information should
be considered with skepticism. In police custody cases in which the officer
has been bitten, he or she may be able to describe how the pattern injury
occurred and exactly who bit them. The odontologist may be called upon to
confirm or challenge the officer’s account. On the other hand, living bite-
mark victims may have reasons to falsely testify that a pattern injury is a
bitemark when indeed it may be a pattern that was caused by another means