1. _______True/False. Bite mark evidence was found on the body of JonBenét Ramsey, but so far no matching suspect has ever been found.


2. _______True/False. The first published use of bite mark evidence to convict someone was in 1954 when a defendant’s teeth marks on a piece of cheese were consistent with those on the victim.


3. _______True/False. Megan’s Law came about after her killer, Jesse Timmendequas, was convicted on the basis of bite marks found on his hand that matched her teeth.


4. _______True/False. Forensic analysis of bite marks left by a suspect on a victim is straight forward if the odontologist is experienced in forensic dentistry and is a member of the American Board of Forensic Odontology.


5. _______True/False. Each person’s teeth are unique and only they are capable of producing a given bite mark if they don’t use dentures.


6. _______True/False. No one has ever been wrongly convicted of a crime based on the comparison of their teeth pattern with a bite mark on a victim, the technique is that unique.


7. _______True/False. When considering bite mark evidence DNA is often introduced as a factor during the trial.


8. _______True/False. Serial killer Ted Bundy was convicted partially on the basis of bite mark evidence.


9. _______True/False. Serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer was convicted partially on the basis of teeth marks on the body parts of his victims he’d cooked and stored in his refrigerator.


10. _______True/False. The skin of a pig most closely resembles that of humans and is used to replicate bite marks after a cast has been taken of a suspect’s teeth.









1. False. That poor little girl had a lot of evidence found around her, none of which pointed conclusively toward anyone, but she had not been bitten.

2. True. The case was Doyle vs. State in 1954 in Texas. A firearms examiner and a dentist examined the cheese and the suspect’s teeth independently of each other. Both concluded the marks on the cheese were made by the accused. The use of bite mark evidence is  thought to have been used as far back as 1870, it was not documented until this case.

3. True. In 1994 Timmendequas murdered seven-year old Megan Kanka in Hamilton Township, NJ. After his conviction the state legislature passed Megan’s Law which requires convicted sex offenders to notify the local police when they move into a neighborhood.

4. False. The science of bite mark analysis is prone to some subjectivity. Factors that may affect one’s analysis can include the positions of the two people, whether one or both were moving at the time of the bite, how the bite mark was photographed, and the type, angle, and strength of lighting used for the photographs, dental illnesses (such as cavities), partial bite mark patterns, and the possibility of forensic odontologists disagreeing.

5. False. In principle this is true, but for all the reasons in the last answer it is possible for one person to be convicted based on a bite mark from another person. This happened in the case of Mississippi vs. Bourne as well as other, albeit rare, cases.

6. False. Mississippi vs. Bourne and State vs. Krone and others have resulted in convictions that were only overturned on the basis of other evidence.

7.True. In both cases Bourne and Krone were set free after DNA analysis of the saliva around the bite mark was performed. Prudent defense attorneys will often take this approach when faced with accusatory bite marks.

8. True

9. False. While it would add a really creepy, ironic twist to his history and conviction, this assertion is bogus.

10. False. The skin and other body parts are very similar to those of humans, but pig skin and human skin differ significantly regarding elasticity. Plus, postmortem bites on pig skin differ significantly from those on living pigskin. Further, there are differences produced when a suspect bites a victim and a plaster cast of the suspect’s teeth is manually snapped shut using simulated pressure.







Scoring


 

ANSWERS

ANSWERS BELOW

Name________________________

ODontology Quiz

Scoring (Number correct)


0-3: Congratulations! Watching Shark Week on the Discovery Channel for the past eight years has finally paid off. You know nearly nothing about teeth. Heck, your idea of dental floss is a steak knife.

4-7: You were only faking sleep when the tooth fairy swapped out your pearly whites for a couple dollars, weren’t you? Too bad the money was counterfeit, and you didn’t concentrate on what was important. Better learn about teeth or you’re going to spend a lot on Fixodent, more than you got from the dame whose got nothing better to do than to look under pillows.

8-10: Fantastic! Your friends probably know you as a odontologist-savant, you’re so good. You are to bitemarks what Martha Stewart is to overpriced chintzy decor, but you have cooler friends. And, you’re not a former felon. Well, if you are you’re too savvy to have been caught by teeth marks. We hope.