These prints have no relationship to the above case.
A bitemark that still has J Kunco in prison for a over a quarter of a century. Two pictures of one bitemark. Taken at different times.
The bitemark experts recently restated their opinions from the original trial. In 1990 they said this evidence lead to a “positive” identification of Kunco as the biter. This year they reaffirmed the value of the skin injury as being valuable pattern evidence for including or excluding someone with adult teeth. Kunco now “cannot be eliminated” according to the bitemark experts. Do they know more than we do? I doubt it. Give it a try.
Just how much information can YOU see? Don’t be confused.
Here is a hint: The BW (1991) pic (‘improved’ by UV light) needs to be rotated 90 degrees CW to be compared to the color photo. They didn’t do that.
Here are Kunco’s teeth from the time of trial. Remember upper front teeth are twice the size of lower front teeth. Hint: Their courtroom exhibit has the upper front teeth at the bottom of the image.