Volume 30, Issue 3 (July 1985)

    Two Bite Mark Cases with Inadequate Scale References

    (Received 6 August 1984; accepted 2 November 1984)

    Published Online: July


      Format Pages Price  
    PDF 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.

    Author Information:

    Bernstein, ML
    Professor, University of Louisville, School of Dentistry, Louisville, KY

    Stock #: JFS11033J

    ISSN: 0022-1198

    DOI: 10.1520/JFS11033J

    ASTM International
    is a member of CrossRef.

    Title Two Bite Mark Cases with Inadequate Scale References
    Symposium , 0000-00-00
    Committee E30