306 Forensic dentistry14.3.2 Analysis of Evidence 3 44
14.3.2.1 Bitemark Injury Classification Systems 3 44
14.3.2.2 Methods of Analysis 3 46
14.3.3 Comparison of Injury and Dental Evidence 3 48
14.3.3.1 Methods of Comparison 3 48
14.3.3.2 Reporting Conclusions and Opinions 350
14.4 Scientific Considerations, Bitemark Issues, and Controversies 351
14.4.1 The Uniqueness of the Human Dentition 351
14.4.2 Human Skin as a Medium for Recording Bitemark Patterns 3 53
14.4.3 Statistical and Mathematical Analyses Relating to Bitemarks 3 54
14.4.4 ABFO Bitemark Workshop 4 3 55
14.4.5 The Totalitarian Ego 3 58
14.5 Forensic Value of Bitemark Evidence 3 59
14.6 Responsibilities and Consequences of Forensic Odontology
Expert Testimony 361
14.7 The Future of Bitemark Analysis 3 64
References 365
14.1 Background and History of
Bitemarks and Bitemark CasesThat the human animal is capable of biting is obvious; that humans often
bite each other is surprising to some, and to others a subject of much inter-
est and study. The marks made by human teeth in inanimate objects and in
human skin have been reported and recorded in both ancient and modern
history. Although scientific information is limited in early recorded history,
the anecdotal information is vivid and sometimes astonishing. Reports of
the role of bitemarks in legal cases are rare prior to 1950. That role increased
rapidly after 1975.14.1.1 Chronology14.1.1.1 Before the Twentieth Century
Accounts of bitemark cases before the twentieth century can be character-
ized as ranging from the materially unsubstantiated to the bizarre. Two brief
examples illustrate that range.
14.1.1.1.1 1066 –1087, William I (the Conqueror) There is no dependable
manner to confirm the facts, but folktales persist that claim that William I
used his distinctive teeth to bite into and mark the Seal of England in order
to verify the authenticity of his correspondence.^1