Bitemarks 339
that may mimic a human bitemark. Forensic odontologists will most often
become involved with the investigation of cases that involve homicide, sexual
assault, and abuse. Abuse or assault victims may or may not be hospital-
ized with serious injuries. Surviving victims may not be seen by an odon-
tologist immediately. Several hours or sometimes even days may pass before
the forensic odontologist is called. Occasionally emergency room personnel
take photographs of the patterned injuries during early treatment. In sexual
assault cases the victim may be seen at a “rape treatment center,” and the
personnel at the center usually photograph and swab patterned injury sites.
In some jurisdictions it is rare for DNA or salivary samples to be taken on
the living victim. Swabbing for salivary traces is a practice that must become
standard in all cases involving suspected bitemarks. Occasionally a victim
may also have inflicted bites on the attacker. A thorough and detailed history
should be taken from the victim as soon as medically possible. The odontolo-
gist should ascertain that DNA or salivary samples have been taken from
the bite wound. Often the medical examiner or emergency room personnel
will be trained in the value of biologic evidence from a bite wound and will
have taken the necessary samples. Dental impressions from the victim can be
taken after the victim has sufficiently recovered. This is always done on a vol-
untary basis and there have been no known cases in which victims who have
bitten their attacker refused the dental impressions. Photographing the bite
wound days or even weeks subsequent to the attack may provide additional
information. This is problematic since victims often will not return to have
photographs taken of their injuries. In cases of abuse in which the victim
is hospitalized the odontologist usually does not see the victims while they
are in initial stages of care but only after they have been stabilized. This may
be days after the incident occurred. Interviews with family members that
are present may provide additional information to help with the analysis. It
should be remembered that voluntary information given by family members
may not be admissible in court. The eyewitness testimony of the victim may
or may not be accurate, as illustrated in the case of a sexual assault victim in a
Michigan attack (People [Michigan] v. Moldowan and Cristini). Although the
reasons are unclear, subsequent DNA evidence showed that the victim seems
to have given false or mistaken testimony as to the identity of her attackers.
Protocols are somewhat altered when examining deceased victims. When
called to the medical examiner’s office to examine patterned injuries that may
or may not be bitemarks, the odontologist may be unable initially to clearly
distinguish class and individual characteristics. This requires judgment and
experience. If the patterned injury is judged to have sufficient class and indi-
vidual characteristics of a bitemark, the injury should be photographed and
biologic samples (DNA) collected prior to any manipulation of the tissue.
Photography is the single most important method of preserving evidence of a
bitemark. Various photographic techniques should be considered, including,