Bitemarks in child abuse case reveals how skin injury patterns vary dramatically on a single victim

Case not from the UK. Its a New Orleans, LA . Original article is from the Times Picayune.

FORENSICS and LAW in FOCUS @ CSIDDS | News and Trends

Shock: Amanda Dufrene, 30, said her son Carson had scratches to his ears, forehead, arms, ankle, foot, calf and fingers when she took him home from a daycare centre in Louisiana

This amazing article  documents how human bite marks on a single victim, arguably by one suspect, are extremely inconsistent in pattern, shape of tooth marks and other details. Here’s a few questions. Would you look at the bite marks before looking at this suspect’s teeth? Which mark would you pick to compare to the suspect’s teeth? If you pick one, why did you not use any others? Is it because one shows more teeth marks? Of course. Doing anything (like “matching” or “suggesting” or “including” or “excluding”) beyond this then requires you to assume that this one mark is a correct representation of the biter’s front teeth physical characteristics (and the other marks are NOT). That’s where all the mistakes start by the “skin-reading” bite mark experts.

This case also proves how human bite marks can cause serious infection.

The Daily Mail.   

View original post

About csidds

Dr. Michael Bowers is a long time forensic consultant in the US and international court systems.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s