Posted on 04/28/2012 10:11:14 PM PDT by nickcarraway
The bite marks on 60-year-old woman who was found dead at her Papermill colony residence on March 20 could lead the police to the killer. In a new trend, the police have sought the help of a forensic odontologist (a dentist who assists in criminal investigation) to crack the case.
According to a forensic odontologist, the bite marks could be that of a woman. This points towards the possibility that a woman was involved in the murder.
Anita Sharma, wife of Late SK Sharma, a resident of B-2/3, Papermill Colony, was found strangulated at her home. The door of the house was ajar. Anita was found dead on the floor of the house.
Anita's postmortem report had confirmed two bite marks on her hands. After getting the autopsy report, ASP Aliganj Anees Ahmed Ansari sought the help of Dr Vikram Ahuja, chief dentist at Shushrut Institute of Plastic Surgery (SIPS).
Dr Ahuja confirmed to TOI that the bite marks in all probability are that of a woman. Dr Ahuja, who took training in forensic odontology from Cardiff University, UK, lifted the two bite marks from Anita's body and collected all minor details. Since the marks were lifted after postmortem, the accuracy of the result would be over 70% he said. If the marks had been taken before autopsy, the accuracy would have been 100%, he added.
Detailing about the science, Dr Ahuja said human teeth leave prominent marks. In the flesh, they leave noticeable bruises or puncture marks. The distinctiveness of the bite mark is used for the identification of the person. For example, gaps or abnormalities present in the teeth of a suspect are compared with the bite mark to see whether it is logical to say that the suspect's teeth made the bite mark or not, Dr Ahuja added.
Every detail of the bite mark, like color, size, appearance, location and number of times the victim was bitten are recorded. Photos of the bite marks and samples are taken. Based on these impressions, a dental mold is made and a profile of the criminal is drawn, said Dr Ahuja, adding that if a suspect has been arrested, their dental records are taken and compared to the bite marks for verification.
To be able to match a suspect with a bite mark, the mark is documented using photographs, said Dr Ahuja. Then a record of the suspect's teeth is acquired where odontologists take an impression of the teeth in silicon rubber. The impression is set using plaster to make a replica of the gums and teeth and compared with the samples. These photos and replicas are then compared with the crime scene bite mark, he further said.
Meanwhile, ASP Aliganj told TOI that bite marks found on Anita's body were matched with three suspects. One suspect has been ruled out by Dr Ahuja, but the other remains under scanner, he added.
Forensic Odontology.....faux science.
Show a dozen different experts the same
evidence and I guarantee you will not
get a consensus. A lot of people have
been convicted by the bogus BS testimony
of “experts” on bite marks.....and many of
them were later exonerated with DNA evidence.
Odontology is just a parlor trick used by
unscrupulous DA’s trying to pad their conviction
record. It should be banned from American
courtrooms as the farce it really is.
You don’t know what you are talking about.
This has been a scandal in US “Justice” for many years.
It’s less that Forensic Odontology is a faux science than many faux scientists claim to be forensic odontologist. You can’t tell from a bite mark if it was made by a male or female. There are no gender differences in occlusal patterns. If you have a specific suspect, though, you can use bite mark analysis to tell if it was possible that the subject made the bite mark. Really only useful to exonerate suspects. (Only mildly useful at that). For example, if I see a bite mark that includes all four incisors and both canines but you are missing an incisor, you couldn’t have made that bite mark. Now, there will likely be thousands of people in the area who could have made that bite mark — all I can say is that you are not one of them.
None of that invalidates the rest of the field of forensic odontology. It’s really good at identifying remains, for example.
I know a lot more than most people.
Even the “science” of fingerprints
still boils down to a matter of opinion.
“You can’t tell from a bite mark if it was made by a male or female.”
It’s the lipstick that gives it away : )
Seriously, you’re right on the mark.
Actually I do. Dut hey, if you wish to ignore the 10,000’s if individuals who’s remains were identified by dental records datiing back to WWII, go ahead, call it faux science. Don’t let any facts get in your way. I can see your faux intelligence shining through.
“It’s the lipstick that gives it away : )”
In Berkeley, that would be proof the biter was male!
The subject is bite marks, not identifying corpses. The bite mark voodoo has convicted several innocents.
The comment I responded to called forensic odontology faux science. I am merely pointing out that is an asinine statement. If you wish to argue that it has limitations with regards to bite marks, that is something that can be debated.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.