(Received 6 August 1984; accepted 2 November 1984)
Published Online: July
| ||Format||Pages||Price|| |
|7||$25||  ADD TO CART|
Most literature addressing comparisons between epidermal bite marks and the perpetrator's bite pattern mandates fastidious coordination between the size of the compared reproductions. While ideal, this is not possible in every case and inability to control this variable in selected cases may not necessarily invalidate the comparison. The first case involves a known perpetrator. All photographic measurements were recorded with acceptable techniques to discover a serious discrepancy in arch size. The second case was degraded by the absence of a ruler in a tangentially made photograph of a bite mark. In both cases, the weight of the conclusions were lessened by these problems but the impartial handling of the evidence and explanation of discrepancies offered credibility to the analyses. Both cases illustrate that a technical infraction in processing and recording bite marks, though serious, need not automatically preempt the analysis.
Professor, University of Louisville, School of Dentistry, Louisville, KY
Stock #: JFS11033J