Bite Mark

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[112885]

112885 Posts in 8614 Topics by 4618 Members
Latest Member: garrymoore

[Storm]

http://callahan.8k.com/images/pics/bitemark.jpg

I hope I am posting this in the righ spot, if not, I am very sorry   

This bitemark has always stumped me. First they thought it was a bite mark from the perpetrater ( sry spelling is alittle off ). Now are they saying it is a bitemark made after death? I dont think it looks like a bitemark. I dont know what it really looks like, and I am not an expert, but like in the middle of the mark, there is the kinda looks like a small x. How would that have been made if it is a bite. And the top where I would guess the top teeth impression, its almost a perfect line. What do you guys think? Am I wrong, and it is a bitemark, and I just dont what they look like? Which really could be the case    I just always wondered about that since I first saw the picture years ago.

[Storm]

i dont think it is either, but other people seem to thinkn so also, and I was just wondering if it was just me or if others felt it didnt look like it either.

[Farm]

Here's the ruling:

Under this claim, the petitioner attempted to establish a "bite mark" on the face of one of the victims and argued that failure to recognize and develop evidence was incompetence on the part of petitioner's counsel Price and Davidson. Evidence is new only if it was not available at trial and could not have been discovered earlier through the exercise of reasonable diligence, Amrine v. Bowersox, 128 F.3d 1222, 1230 (8th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 118 S.Ct. 1807 (1998).

The "bite mark" evidence is not "new" because the marks were on the victim's face from the initial discovery of the bodies. Furthermore, the evidence is not reliable. The bulk of the testimony at the evidentiary hearing was that no bite mark could be identified to a reasonable degree of medical certainty.

The testimony of Doctors Peretti, Sturner, and Dugan, and that of Val Price and defendant's investigator, Ron Lax, established that there are not identifiable bite marks on the photographs of the bodies. Dr. Harry Mincer testified that the identification of bite marks is not an exact science. Dr. Mincer, president of the American Board of Forensic Odontology and an expert in the field of forensic odontology also concluded that the mark over the eye brow of Steve Branch was not a bite mark within a degree of reasonable medical certainty.

As you can see, even the bulk of the Defense witnesses failed to identify a human bitemark.

Don't expect the "predation" nonsense to be ruled on any differently - if it's even considered at all.

[MachaSidhe]

I don't think it is a bite mark either. It lacks alot of definition IMO and the bottom of the "circle" shape looks like 2 half moons to me. I would think if it was a bite and was strong enough to draw blood , it would have left a better impression.
Someone said the X mark in the middle could have been a seperate event and not from whatever caused the outside wound. I asked what kinda bite would leave an x in the middle as well. The butt of a compass knife was mentioned as a possible source , or a belt buckle.

just my opinion
Macha

[Farm]

Looks like two injuries. (not counting the "X")

Like maybe...

And....

[Rudder]

Yeah, I saw this thread earlier and started looking for pics of the "compass"

For one, according to the ruler, the "bitemark" is just over an inch in circumference. Who's mouth is that little? I can't believe the "bitemark" was ever given credence.

I was thinking it might have been a blow from the butt of the knife, before the compass fell off. That little red ex looks awfully centered.

[Storm]

Ya that cannot be a bitemark. It looks nothing like teeth or anything. I mean, i could put the impressions of my teeth on my skin by biting and u can see the separate teeth, if the bite was hard enough to cause bleeding, its deep enough to see the imprssion of the separate teeth.

[Fwarm]

Ever seen someone get a cutting hit on their eye? Its where the skin folds under the punch and tears when compressed.


It is very common



Looks like stiches on this one


you can see the tear on this ones upper eyelid I will look for more later

[Storm]

the first pic, looks more like what was on Steve's face. With the rounded cut on the right side, and bottom.

[MachaSidhe]

I agree Storm , that first one does look similar.

What about brusing though? Would that show up after death? 

If the X was result as the butt end of the compass cracking wouldn't it be less uniform though? Maybe I'm looking at it to much. Maybe it would depend on how the blow hit?

I did think at one time it reminded me of those little stud jewerly/belts people use to walk around wearing but I think that was pretty out by 1993 wasn't it? 

Macha

[pagodajade]

What about brusing though? Would that show up after death?

Hey Macha, in one of my criminal investgations books, it talks about bruising.  It says that bruising even occurs after death.  Thats why sometimes things are missed in autopsys but later when they check the body again, or have it exhumed, then look back over it.  Sometimes after a bad blow to the chest or head wont show bruising at first but when looked at a couple of days later, bruising will appear. 

[MachaSidhe]

Thanks Jade.

That anwsers the question about brusing.

Any thoughts about the X wound?

Macha

[Kanga]

Any thoughts about the X wound?

Macha

IMHO, it's a stick Macha. The base end of a broken branch (no pun intended naturally). But hey, it could be fucking anything...

[pagodajade]

Quick question.
First, are there any more 'x' marks on any of the bodies like this one, or is this the only one found?

Second, the picture is zoomed in pretty good, and since Im not willing to look at any autopsy pics, could someone tell me how this child is facing?  Where exactly is this 'bite mark' located?  If I were looking at the picture zoomed back to normal, what would I see?  I need you to be my eyes so I can get an idea of the positioning of that x.

Thanks.

[Fwarm]

That is the eyebrow the rules is covering the eyelid. The ME opinion was that it could be a belt buckle but not a bite mark its far to small for an adult human anyway.