Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Case Report
  • Published:
International Journal of Legal Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

An Erratum to this article was published on 30 October 2014

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

References

  1. Neethling J, Visser P, Potgieter J (2001) Law of delict. Butterworths, Durban

    Google Scholar 

  2. Shields LB, Bernstein ML, Hunsaker JC 3rd, Stewart DM (2009) Dog bite-related fatalities: a 15-year review of Kentucky medical examiner cases. Am J Forensic Med Pathol 30:223–230

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Lauridson JR, Myers L (1993) Evaluation of fatal dog bites: the view of the medical examiner and animal behaviorist. J Forensic Sci 38:726–731

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. De Munnynck K, Van de Voorde W (2002) Forensic approach of fatal dog attacks: a case report and literature review. Int J Leg Med 116:295–300

    Google Scholar 

  5. Barnes JE, Boats BW, Putnam FW, Dates HF, Mahlman HR (2006) Ownership of high-risk (“vicious”) dogs as a marker for deviant behaviors: implications for risk assessment. J Interpers Violence 21:1616–1634

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Sacks JJ, Sinclair L, Gilchrist J (2000) Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998. J Am Vet Med Assoc 217:836–840

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Tsokos M, Byard RW, Puschel K (2007) Extensive and mutilating craniofacial trauma involving defleshing and decapitation: unusual features of fatal dog attacks in the young. Am J Forensic Med Pathol 28:131–136

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Delise K (2002) Fatal dog attacks: the stories behind the statistics. Anubis Press, Manorville

    Google Scholar 

  9. Boglioli LR, Taff ML, Turkel SJ, Taylor JV, Peterson C (2000) Unusual infant death: dog attack or postmortem mutilation after child abuse. Am J Forensic Med Pathol 21:389–394

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Verzeletti A, Cortellini V, Vassalini M (2010) Post-mortem injuries by dog: case report. J Forensic Leg Med 17:216–219

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Loewe CL, Diaz FJ, Bechinski J (2007) Pitbull mauling deaths in Detroit. Am J Forensic Med Pathol 28:356–360

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Pomara C, D'Errico S, Jarussi V, Turillazzi E, Fineschi V (2011) Cave canem: bite mark analysis in fatal dog pack attack. Am J Forensic Med Pathol 32(1):50–4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Bernitz H, van Niekerk PJ (2003) Bungled bite mark evidence collection: a proposed protocol for the prevention thereof. J Dent Assoc S Afr 58:16–19

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Bernitz H, Owen JH, van Heerden WF, Solheim T (2008) An integrated technique for the analysis of skin bite marks. J Forensic Sci 53:194–198

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Bernitz H, van Heerden WF, Solheim T, Owen JH (2006) A technique to capture, analyze, and quantify anterior teeth rotations for application in court cases involving tooth marks. J Forensic Sci 51:624–629

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Pierce LJ (1986) Guidelines for bite mark analysis. J Am Dent Assoc 112:383–386

    Google Scholar 

  17. Lion C, Escande F, Burdin JC (1996) Capnocytophaga canimorsus infections in human: review of the literature and case report. Eur J Epidemiol 12:521–533

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Kampinga GA, Bollen AE, Harmsen HJ, de Vries-Hospers HG (2002) Meningitis after a superficial dog bite. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 146:495

    Google Scholar 

  19. Mathews JR, Lattal KA (1994) A behavioral analysis of dog bites to children. J Dev Behav Pediatr 15:44–52

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Bernitz H (2005) Concepts to elucidate the pattern-associated analysis of tooth marks in court. J Dent Assoc S Afr 60(62):64–65

    Google Scholar 

  21. Stols G, Bernitz H (2010) Reconstruction of deformed bite marks using affine transformations. J Forensic Sci 55:784–787

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Vanderkolk JR (2009) Forensic comparative science qualitative quantitative source determination of unique impressions, images and objects. Elsevier Academic, Burlington

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Oral Pathology and Oral Biology, School of Dentistry, University of Pretoria, P.O. Box 1266, Pretoria, 0001, Gauteng, South Africa

    Herman Bernitz

  2. Veterinary Consultant, P.O. Box 1276, Middelburg, Mpumalanga, South Africa

    Zephné Bernitz

  3. Department of Companion Animal Clinical Studies, Faculty of Veterinary Science, University of Pretoria, Onderstepoort, Pretoria, South Africa

    Gerhard Steenkamp

  4. Department of Forensic Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa

    Ryan Blumenthal

  5. Department of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa

    Gerrit Stols

Authors
  1. Herman Bernitz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Zephné Bernitz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gerhard Steenkamp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ryan Blumenthal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Gerrit Stols
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Herman Bernitz.

Additional information

An erratum to this article is available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00414-014-1098-6.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bernitz, H., Bernitz, Z., Steenkamp, G. et al. 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. Int J Legal Med 126, 441–446 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-011-0575-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-011-0575-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation