CRIMINAL JUSTICE FORENSICS
Eclpse1
crj311week4discussion1feedback.docxBite marks are no longer considered a way to specifically identify someone, but it can be used to exclude or include a person of interest. As a juror on a homicide case, you have heard an odonotologist discuss the bite mark evidence located on the victim and how the suspect cannot be excluded as to whom the bite mark belongs.
If your last name begins with A-L, argue your opinion as to how the bite mark would possibly exclude the suspect.
If your last name begins with M-Z, argue your opinion as to how the bite mark would possibly include the suspect.
This Assignment above is already complete your next assignment is to:
Respond to at least two of your classmates’ posts.
You Must Provide Feedback on what they have written.
You should include your thoughts associated with their posted information.
Additionally, you are to contribute to the discussion by adding support or constructive alternatives to your classmates’ posts.
Each response should be a minimum of 200 words.
You are to provide feedback from two students discussion posts
Two discussion posts 200 words each= 400 words total for the two different student responses
See attachment below for two different student responses I provided for you
First Student Response Julian Lobato
Hello Everyone,
The uniqueness of an individual’s bite mark is generally accepted. The use of bite mark analysis to identify or exclude those suspected of crimes is now a well-established activity in forensic dentistry. Although the techniques for evaluating bite mark evidence are extremely sophisticated, it is important that the courtroom presentation of such evidence should be simple as possible and be directed towards those who must judge it. Dentists likely to be involved in the courtroom presentation of bite mark evidence should: be certain that their local law enforcement personnel are frequently updated on the techniques to be used for producing the optimum evidence needed to evaluate bite marks; become acquainted with the current techniques of evaluating bite mark evidence and understanding their difficulties and pitfalls (Drinnan, AJ. & Melton, MJ, 1985).
The key, experts say, is for lawyers to know enough about the subjective components of bite-mark analysis to refute it effectively. For example; as people age, Dr Souviron a forensic dentist says their jaws expand, changing the position of their teeth. Teeth can be chipped, broken or just pulled out; skin shifts when it is bitten. And, one must ask, was the victim moving? If the bite was on the chest, was the arm stretched above the head or resting next to the torso? So let’s say for instance the suspect had almost perfect teeth than this would exclude him/her of being a suspect in a murder case if the victim had bite marks (Santos, 2007). “If you limit bite-mark analysis to its validity, it’s not inappropriate for an expert to say that a certain suspect is not the biter.” “I feel very strongly if that the courts were little more vigilant or perhaps simply a little more informed that they would come very close to excluding a lot of this evidence. As the pace of overturned convictions increases, however, the courts are growing more skeptical of the absolute conclusions drawn by bite-mark experts and, in turn, are becoming more receptive when defense lawyers rebut the analysis.
References:
Santos, Fernanda (2007) Evidence from Bite Marks, It Turns Out, Is Not So Elementary http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/weekinreview/28santos.html?_r=1
Second Student Response from John Piposar
While bite marks are no longer used to identify a specific person, they can be used to include people of interest or exclude them. The reason bite marks are no longer used to identify a specific person is because their bite marks are normal on a curved surface and end up deformed on human skin (Gaensslen, et al, 2013). This bite mark may not identify a specific person, but it could include the suspect, keeping the defense from excluding his suspect from the crime. Things that can be taken into account with a bite mark like this is the length of the bite mark. The suspect has a 5mm length to his/her bite mark matches the bite mark on the victim. Also the width of the bite mark can help include the suspect. The width of this bite mark is just under 6mm. Thus, if the suspects bite mark is 5mm in length and just under 6mm wide then he/she could be included in the list of suspects. Another factor that could lead to this suspect being included is the bottom puncher wound. This is most likely made by a sharp pointy tooth versus a blunt tooth. The markings on the left side also shows that the biter’s teeth are more pronounce, meaning that the teeth on that side when closed are tighter than those on the right side. If the suspect’s bite mark matches these markers it would raise the probability that he/she was the one that bite the victim. Much like trace evidence, bite marks can be used to include or exclude people. It also can be used to build a case against the suspect. While his/her bite mark cannot be individualized it can link the suspect to the crime and raise the probability that he/she is the criminal.
Reference:
Gaensslen, R.E., Larsen, A.K. (2013). Introductory Forensic Science. Retrieved from https://content.ashford.edu/books/AUCRJ311.13.1/sections/front_matter
