Ted Bundy was a killer. Not only was he a killer but he was a serial killer. He rampaged through a large part of the United States killing and brutalizing women from 1974 until his eventually capture in 1978(Ramsland, 2004). He was captured twice and managed to escape twice. Under stress from life as a fugitive he made the fatal mistake which would lead to his conviction and eventual execution.
Ted Bundy bludgeoned, raped and tortured more than 30 women. Some estimates are closer to forty. Yet he did not fit the profile of a killer. He was intelligent and some say handsome. He seemed to have a future as a lawyer. He killed most of his victims without leaving any traceable evidence. In some cases the bodies were not found until years later. In most cases he left no fingerprints or other traceable evidence. DNA was recovered but could not be matched conclusively to Ted Bundy( Ramsland, 2004).
There are many theories as to why a young intelligent man would become a violent, sadistic killer of young women. I personally think that as a shy young man he was frustrated by a relationship in which he felt inferior. When the woman of his dreams, who he had professed love, broke off there relationship the rage in him grew. He had worked as a volunteer counselor at a rape crisis hotline (Rule, 1991). In his rage against the failure of his relationship he sought to inflict the most pain he could on women especially those who looked like his ex-girlfriend.
He had been dumped by a beautiful young woman fitting for his role as a lawyer (He studied law briefly but was not a lawyer). He had worked as a rape crisis counselor where he had the perfect opportunity to hear and feel what hurt women the most. He dearly wanted to hurt the woman who had hurt him. He couldn't really hurt her so he raged against women who looked like her in the beginning. In the end the thrill of the kill was what mattered to him and the look of the victim no longer mattered.
Maybe he was sexually aroused by the anger and pain of the rape crisis line victims he counseled. Ted Bundy's motivation for his brutality will remain a mystery but it was probably a combination of these and other factors.
After escaping from custody in Aspen, Colorado not once but twice he fled to Florida. There he went on a deadly rampage at the Chi Omega Sorority house leaving two women dead and two badly injured all in a matter of hours.
He succumbed to his rage and bit one of his victims on the buttock and once on the breast. Lisa Levy was dead but on her buttock Ted Bundy had left a piece of evidence which could be used to link him to the crime. In conjunction with the testimony of witness who saw him flee the Chi Omega Sorority House his own dental impression helped convict him and sent him to the electric chair.
He did not bite Lisa Levy's buttock once but twice. The first bite showed a full and complete bite mark. The second bite was rotated so that there were two impressions of the lower teeth. The top teeth stayed in place while the lower teeth where rotated (Ramsland, 2004). The second set of impressions gave investigators more points for comparison increasing the probability of a match.
The analysis of the bite marks on Lisa Levy's buttock was only possible because of the actions of a quick thinking crime scene investigator who took pictures at the scene. The investigator had the forethought to include a ruler in the photo to show scale. The existence of this photograph was pivotal in convicting Bundy. Without the photograph he may have been acquitted. The bite mark had been incised from the buttock for analysis but had degraded and was no longer useful as evidence by the time of the trial (from www.crimelibrary.com). The only evidence of the original size and shape of the bite mark was the photograph taken at the scene.
After his arrest for the Chi Omega Sorority murders forensic odontologist (dentist) Dr. Richard Souviron examined Bundy's teeth (with the aid of a warrant) and took photographs of his upper and lower teeth (Innes, 2000). In court he used enlarged photographs to show the jury the unique characteristics of Bundy's teeth. Next he used a transparent overlay of Bundy's teeth and placed it over an enlarged photograph of the bite mark (Innes, 2000). The two seemed to match. Finally, the chief consultant in forensic dentistry to New York City's Medical Examiner, Dr. L. Lavine , confirmed Souviron's findings. He testified that from the position and measurements of the bite mark he could tell that Lisa was no longer struggling when it was made. The Jury was convinced that Bundy was the one who bit Lisa Levy.
Bite mark analysis had shown that his teeth had created the injuries to Lisa Levy most likely after she was dead or near to death.
According to the eyewitness account of Nita Neary Ted had run from the sorority house with a log rapped in cloth (the weapon used to club his victims) (Innes, 2000).
He was convicted and sentenced to die in Florida's electric chair.
The combination of a quick a thinking investigator, a skilled photographer and two highly credible expert witnesses made bite mark analysis pivotal in the conviction of a monster. Ted Bundy was not the first or the last to be convicted on analysis of a bite mark but he certainly was the most famous.
Collecting the evidence
One of the goals in any criminal investigation is to collect evidence which when analyzed will either confirm the involvement of a particular individual or exonerate them. In any investigation the investigators will formulate as many hypotheses as possible regarding the circumstances of the crime. The results of the evidence analysis will then be used to disqualify each hypothesis until one remains. If the evidence does not support the events of the final hypothesis the investigator then needs to develop a new hypothesis based on the evidence.
There are four main elements to an investigation (Millar, 2003) First, the crime scene is thoroughly documented. Photographs, videos, sketches and notes describing the scene are made. Second, the physical evidence is collected and unknown substances are sent to the laboratory for identification and analysis. Third, the results of the laboratory analysis of the physical evidence are compared to witness statements. Finally, both witness statements and laboratory results are used to disprove the investigator's hypotheses until one remains.
Types of Evidence
Physical evidence can broken be down into two general categories. There are types of physical evidence which can be considered have "class" characteristics. Evidence with class characteristics can be said to have similar characteristics within a group but can not be linked to a particular individual. An example of evidence which has class characteristics is as blood types (Saferstein, 2004). All blood types exist in any given population. The blood type itself only indicates the percentage of people in a population from which the sample could have come from based on the ratio of occurrence in that population. It does not tell an investigator what particular individual the sample came from.
This is not to say that evidence with class characteristics is not useful. Several different kinds of evidence such as hair, blood type and glass fragments together may significantly raise the probability of linking a suspect or victim to a crime scene (Saferstein, 2004)( Crocker, 1999).
The second type of evidence is that which exhibits 'individual' characteristics. This type of evidence has numerous points of comparison. Each point of comparison from an 'unknown source' which matches a 'known source' sample raises the probability of the two samples having the same origin (Saferstein, 2004). In short, the huge number of comparison points in things like DNA samples or fingerprints makes it possible to match these types of samples to a particular individual with a very high probability. Some bite marks (as in the Bundy case) can be considered to have individual characteristics.
Evidence with class characteristics are best used to confirm the events of a crime (Saferstein.2004). Evidence with individual characteristics can identify an individual source.
Forensic Odontology (dentistry) has been used as far back as the Roman Empire to identify victims of crime and other mishaps. Bite mark analysis is somewhat newer but is gaining acceptance as a forensic tool. When the bite mark is not sufficiently deep to reveal the unique characteristics of each tooth it can only be said to have "class" characteristics. However, the location, size and number of wounds can be used as a useful indicator of the type of crime and possible group of suspects. Criminal profilers often analyze the position of wounds to develop a profile of the offender (Douglas, 1998)
In a non-sexually based assault bite marks may be found on the fingers, ears, nose, chest and thorax (Lane, 1992) In cases of sexual assault where the victim is female wounds tend to cluster around parts of the body associated with sexuality. Bite marks might be found on the neck, front of the shoulder, arm, breast, pubic area, buttocks and thigh (Lane, 1992). In a male victim bite marks might be found on the arm, chest and abdomen (Lane, 1992)
In cases of homosexual assault there is only data for male victims according to Lane (1992). In male victims bite marks might be found on the back of the shoulder, back, arm or armpit, chest, penis or scrotum (Lane, 1992).
In addition to the location of the bite mark the type of severity of the injury may give investigators clues as to the mental state of the offender. A hemorrhage is a blood spot. An abrasion is a bruise with out damage to the skin. A contusion is a broken blood vessel. A laceration is torn or punctured skin. An incision is a neat puncture of the skin. An avulsion is removal of the skin. Finally an artifact is where a piece of flesh or body part is completely removed (Genge, 2002) All of these categories indicate a level of violence. From this investigators can infer the mental state of the offender.
In cases where the bite mark causes sufficient damage to the flesh it is possible determine the unique characteristics of each tooth. It is then possible to match these unique characteristics to a particular individual (Saferstein, 2004) (Bowers, 2004). The size and shape of the wound will be affected by the place on the body where it occurs because certain areas of the body bend distorting the surface area of the skin (Bowers, 2004).
Some bite marks might only be represented as a bruise. In these cases it rare to be able to determine individual characteristics (Bowers, 2004) Dr. Bowers (2004) recommends that thorough analysis of the size, position and other features of bite marks be completed before any comparison with a suspect's dentition is made.
The first step in analysis of a bite mark is to determine whether the injury is a bite mark. If it is then it must be determined whether the injury was caused by human teeth (Lane, 1992). Some of the things an investigator might look for are the presence of suction marks (unique to humans) and marks from the front incisors, canines and premolars but not the molars (Lane, 1992).
Second, the investigator should determine whether the bite marks are consistent with the time of the crime. For example, bite marks which have begun to heal are not consistent with a crime which occurred only a few hours before the examination. These wounds may not be related to the crime under investigation.
Finally, the investigator must determine whether the bite marks are of the quality which would be useful for comparison purposes. If it is determined that the marks are human in origin and related to the crime then processing of the marks came begin. At this point dental casts can be made. Casts can be made of the wounds and/or a suspect's teeth.
If the injuries in the form of bite marks are recent they should be swabbed for DNA from saliva left in the wound (Innes, 2002). The wound(s) should be photographed using digital imaging equipment such as a digital camera (Bowers, 2004).
Forensic Odontologists most often receive evidence in the form of a photographs or images stored on computer disc. The use of digital photography allows the odontologist to reduce the margin of error found with traditional analysis of photographs (Bowers, 2004).
The following is from Dr. C.M. Bowers website found at www.forensic.to/webhome/bitemarks/.
The advantages of using digital photography in imaging software are:
"Digital images provide accurate means of measuring (the) physical parameters of crime scene evidence. The use of digital images and software allow for the correction of common photographic distortion and size discrepancies. Digital images and software help eliminate examiner subjectivity. Digital images when used with software such as Photoshop allow for better control of the image visualization through the use of features such as zoom. When digital photography is used in combination with digital imaging software the procedures used to compare bite marks are standardized leading to the reproducibility of the results between examiners. Finally, images can be electronically stored and transferred as needed (Bowers, 2004)."
To compare dental profiles like the one described in the Ted Bundy case Dr. Bowers recommends the use of the software program Adobe Photoshop. This program can be used to create transparent overlays which can be laid over the bite marks. (See www.forensic.to/webhome/bitemarks/ for more detail on this subject.)
Bite marks which are examined a significant time after they occurred can be examined using alternative photographic methods. Photographic film and lenses which pick up ultraviolet light can be used to make images of the tips of the penetrated area (Gengre, 2002). Photographic film which is sensitive to infrared light can "see through skin" showing damage to the underlying tissue. Both if these types of photography are difficult to use in the field because they require very specific handling and the use of specialized lenses (Lane, 1992) (Gengre, 2002)
Sometimes the bite mark is on a corpse. In this case where decomposition is already in progress the Dorian method can be useful in showing the underlying damage. The Dorian method is to incise the bite mark (Gengre, 2002)
Bite mark analysis can be used with impressions made in foodstuffs and other materials which show the form, shape and size of teeth. In 1984 a man named Aurther Hutchinson was convicted of murder, rape and aggravated burglary. He was convicted on several pieces of class evidence such as blood stains and shoe prints. His dental impression left in a piece of cheese put him at the scene of the crime (Innes, 2000).
Percy Michaels, a forensic odontologist was able to determine the source of a bite mark even though the two subjects were identical twins. Two female twins and a male had engaged in consensual rough sex several months before Dr. Michaels became involved. During the encounter one of the twins bit the male on the buttock. Some time later one of the sisters developed HIV. The male also later tested positive. Dr. Michaels needed to determine which twin bit the man. Was it the HIV positive sister? If so she may have committed a crime in that she bit the man knowing she was positive for HIV. If the other sister, who was not positive for the virus, was the creator of the bite mark then the man may have contracted the disease from another source (Genge, 2002).
Dr. Michael's used film sensitive to ultra violet light to photograph the bite mark (ultraviolet light is at the far end of the blue spectrum of light and can show underlying tissue damage even months later (Saferstein, 2004). Dr. Michaels then compared the image to detailed X-rays of each of the twin's dentition.
Even though they where identical twins seven points of difference were found by Dr. Michaels. From this it was determined that the HIV positive sister could not have bitten the man (Genge, 2002).
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
