The individualisation of a dog bite mark: a case study highlighting the bite mark analysis, with emphasis on differences between dog and human bite marks

Abstract

A person who keeps or controls a dog in his own interest is liable "without fault" should that dog cause harm to any person. By owning a dog, man welcomes into his home a beast that preserves much of its primordial self, and is capable of inflicting a fatal bite wound. The courts may require the forensic expert to identify which specific dog caused the damage or fatal bite in an effort to establish the owner/controller of the animal. Very little has been published on the individualisation of dog bite marks, the procedures to be followed when confronted with usable bite marks and the range of analysis techniques available. The authors advocate a multidisciplinary approach, and utilise a case study to demonstrate the protocol to be followed when analysing a dog bite mark. The paper also highlights differences between human and dog inflicted bites. The authors warn against over interpretation of poor quality bite marks and a final conclusion of absolute certainty.

Forensic studies of dog attacks on humans: a focus on bite mark analysis

“…Canidae (dogs and relatives) belongs to the infraorder Canoidea within the Caniformia superfamily. Dogs are still wolves beneath the skin; 8 recent findings confirm that the dog (Canis lupus familiaris) was domesticated from the Eurasian wolf (Canis lupus lupus). 11 Dogs have particular dental and maxillofacial features.…”

“…The huge force the bite muscle complex can exhibit allows the dog to wrench and tear and cause considerable damage. 2,4,6,8,9,12,13 Although there are reports in which many breeds of dogs have been involved in fatal or nearly fatal attacks on humans, the majority of cases involve pit bull-type dogs, Rottweilers, and German Shepherds, most of whom were unrestrained on their owner's holdings. 1,2,6,[13][14][15] The expression "pit bull-type" defines a group of breeds with special features and behavioral characteristics: a tendency to not to make intimidating gestures (growling and baring of teeth) prior to attacking, greater jaw pressures, a capacity to continue grinding their posterior teeth into tissues while holding on with the canines, and an aggressive personality in a relative larger size.…”

“…Most of the dogs involved in these events are known to the victim or belong to him. [2][3][4][5][6][7][8] A bite mark is defined as a physical alteration in a medium caused by the contact of teeth. 9 When a bite mark is caused by an animal, the following three patterns can be observed: nonfatal bite wounds, fatal bite wounds, and postmortem lacerations of the victim's body.…”

Morphometric Analysis of Bite Mark Patterns Caused by Domestic Dogs ( Canis lupus familiaris ) Using Dental Wax Registers

“…This may be due to significant differences in weights and size between them. In fact, Bernitz et al (2012) support that small and large dogs can be differentiated by the intercanines width.…”

An analysis of dental intercanine distance for use in court cases involving bite marks.

“…The tooth marks left by canines tend to be more prominent in skin bite marks as these teeth are usually longer and cause more bruising [4]. This also applies in dog bite marks, where the canines are much longer [5,6]. The measured distance between these marks present in the dental arch are referred to as the intercanine distance and plays an important role in orientation of bite marks on skin [4].Bites inflicted are inadvertently left as clues at crime scenes and can be used to convict or exonerate suspects [7,8].Skin bite marks are generally present on the body of the victim and inflicted by the assailant, but in some cases the wounds are self-inflicted or inflicted by the victim on the assailant [9].…”