The Importance of the Bite Mark Evidence in the Conviction of Ted Bundy

The Importance of the Bite Mark Evidence in the Conviction of Ted Bundy

Abstract

Ted Bundy was an intelligent serial killer who did not leave any evidence in his crime scenes. However, biting one of his victims’ buttocks, Lisa Levy, was the beginning of his end since investigators used the bite mark evidence to sentence him to death. Bundy had misaligned and chipped teeth, which resembled the dentition that was left on Levy’s body. The jury felt that this evidence was enough to determine the case and subsequently sentenced the defendant to death. The conclusions of this case enabled judges to conclude critical cases, although it led to wrongful accusations and convictions.

The Importance of the Bite Mark Evidence in the Conviction of Ted Bundy

Ted Bundy’s trial captured the attention of the United States due to the grave nature of his crime. Even though the defendant was accused of murdering two women, Lisa Levy and Margaret Bowman, in cold blood, the bite mark that he left on Lisa Levy captured the jury’s attention. The court relied heavily on the bite mark evidence to sentence Bundy. The reliance activated intense debates on whether bites were admissible in courts. Even though the forensics team might have linked the bite marks on Levy’s buttocks to Bundy’s teeth, many attorneys across the U.S. believe that such type of evidence is unreliable and invalid. This is a compelling case because it illustrates the limitations of some forensic strategies. Therefore, scrutinizing the sentencing of Bundy would reveal the validity of bite-mark evidence and factors that juries should consider while using it to conclude cases.

Forensic Tools that were Employed in the Case

To begin with, the case brought the field of forensic dentistry into the American public sphere. Before the incident, many Americans did not think that a bite mark was admissible in courts. However, the outlook changed when the judges relied on the bite mark on one of Bundy’s victims, Lisa Levy, to sentence Bundy. The murders of Lisa Levy and Martha Bowen were reported on the night of January 15, 1978, by a witness who claimed that the suspect was wearing a blue knit cap (Tron, 2019). The two young girls were killed using a wooden club, and the attacker left with his weapon. At the same time, the killer cleaned the rooms before leaving and subsequently prevented investigators from obtaining substantial evidence of the crime scenes. Nonetheless, the law enforcement officers investigating the case collected blood and sperm samples and print smudges, which proved inconclusive (Dutelle, 2017). However, the suspect left several bite marks on one of the victims, which the detectives used to unearth him. The investigators found an odd bite mark on Levy’s buttocks that became a centerpiece of the trial. Although she had also been bitten on one of her breasts, the mark on the buttock gave a better impression of the perpetrator’s dental features. The forensic scientists took photographs of the mark and requested the suspect Ted Bundy to provide his dental impression. The detectives had singled out Bundy because he was known for cleaning the scenes thoroughly, preventing police officers from linking him to the murders that he committed. Interestingly, Bundy refused to provide the investigators with the images of his dental structure. The forensic officers acquire a search warrant that allowed them to obtain the details that they wanted from Bundy using any method. As a result, the detectives organized a surprise trip to Bundy’s home to prevent him from grinding his teeth. An experienced dentist, Dr. Richard Souviron, obtained several pictures of Bundy’s front upper and lower teeth and gums. Dr. Souviron further analyzed the patterns of the suspect’s teeth. Thus, the forensic approach to this case enabled the American public that scrutinizing teeth marks could reveal the perpetrators of crime.

Dr. Souviron went on to present the outcomes of his study during the trial. Intriguingly, Bundy had sent a lawyer to oppose the admissibility of the bite marker evidence in the case. The attorney argued that the detectives lacked grounds for the acquisition of the report. However, the judge ruled that the evidence was admissible and allowed Dr. Souviron to take the stand in the court. The dentist claimed that the forensic details illustrated that the suspect’s dental image matched the uneven bite marks that were found on Levy’s buttocks. Using photographs, Dr. Souviron, demonstrated that a double bite was involved in the crime. The invader had bit the victim on the top of her buttocks and sideways (Dutelle, 2017). Dr. Souviron argued that the forensics team used several scientific approaches to arrive at their conclusions. The model teeth are one of the strategies that Dr.Souviron and his team employed to link Bundy’s teeth structure to the bite marks on Levy’s buttocks. The forensics scientists also used the model teeth technique to standardize their evaluations and enhance the accuracy of the match. Dr. Souviron further outlined the structure of the suspect’s teeth to support his claims. Using a transparent sheet and enlarged images, the dentist explained the unique alignment, the chips, size, and sharpness of Bundy’s teeth, linking them to the indentation marks that were found on the victim’s body. Thus, Dr. Souviron presented his findings to the court to vindicate the suspect.

Moreover, the jury called Dr. Lowell Levin into the court to seek his opinion of Dr. Souviron’s findings. Dr. Levine was the chief consultant in New York City’s dentistry department. As such, his views would validate or invalidate Dr. Souviron’s claims. Dr. Levine claimed that the victim had to be lying passive for the bite marks to be in the same position as they were found on the images. These claims supported the outcomes of Dr. Souviron’s forensic evaluations on Bundy’s teeth structure. As a result, Bundy was found guilty and sentenced to death, making it the first case to be decided based on bite marks in Florida. Therefore, Dr. Levine’s testimony played a crucial role in the outcomes of Bundy’s case.

Societal Impact and Legal Implications of the Case

Even though the bite mark evidenced helped the jury to sentence a serial killer to death, the case has had an array of social and legal challenges. The outcome of Bundy’s case increased the importance of expert testimonies matching body wounds with bite marks of the suspects in American courts. The bite marks helped judges to solve hundreds of rape and murder cases, leading to some defendants being put on death row. Thus, the admissibility of bite mark evidence in courts enabled judges to solve critical cases, helping victims obtain justice and perpetrators receive appropriate penalties.

The conclusions of Dundy’s case have also affected the American legal sphere significantly. Mounting evidence reveals that matching victims’ body wounds to suspect’s dentition is an unreliable approach to solving critical litigations. Rape and murder cases are very delicate and require a lot of caution. As such, relying on wounds alone can have detrimental effects on the suspects due to the high likelihood of wrongful convictions. For example, a disputed bite-mark identification is at the center of the controversy that surrounds the incarceration of a 61-year old Lee Howard. The defendant has been on death row for more than two decades after being found guilty of raping and killing an 84-year-old woman. The jury relied heavily on what forensic experts are now calling far-fetched match of his dentition to the purported bite wounds that were found on the victim. Interestingly, the body was examined after it had been buried and exhumed, further questioning the validity of the experts’ findings. Lee Howard appealed the case to Mississippi’s Supreme Court, arguing that the bite mark evidence was insufficient to convict him. According to Eckholm (2014), at least 17 people who were sentenced based on the bite matches have been released and exonerated since 2000. The exoneration occurred due to DNA tests revealing that the convicts had been wrongly accused. These occurrences illustrate that Bundy would be a free man if his trial occurred today since investigators had no other evidence apart from Dr.Souviron’s testimony. Tron (2019) supports this outlook by arguing that it is scientifically impossible to link a bite mark to an individual’s dental impression. Forensics need extensive data to compare the wound’s indentations and conclude that they belong to a particular person. While the investigators cannot exclude a suspect as the source of a bite mark, they should not claim that the defendants caused the wounds. Thus, the outcomes of Bundy’s case have shaped the courts’ reliance on bite mark evidence to determine cases.

In conclusion, the bite mark evidence in Ted Bundy’s case shaped the U.S. legal framework significantly since it allowed courts to decide cases based on expert reports on wounds found on victims. Bundy had been accused of murdering two women at Florida State University. However, the jury did not have tangible evidence to link him to the others. Having hit a dead end, investigators decided to pursue the bite marks that were on the buttocks of one of the victims, Lisa Levy. Suspecting that Bundy might have behind the killings, the detectives obtained a warranty and forcefully collected images of his dentition and used those to sentence him to death. These occurrences altered the dynamics of the U.S. criminal justice systems because it allowed law enforcement officers to assess the wounds that victims suffered during the crime, especially bite marks. Nonetheless, heavy reliance on bite mark evidence is controversial because it lacks scientific support. Relying on such proof to determine cases enhances the susceptibility of wrongful convictions. Therefore, judges should not rely on bite marks alone while deciding critical cases but link experts’ testimonies into other pieces of evidence.

References

Dutelle, A. W. (2017). An introduction to crime scene investigation. Burlington, Massachusetts: Jones and Bartlett Learning.

Eckholm, E. (2014, Sept.15). Mississippi death row case faults bite-mark forensics. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/16/us/mississippi-death-row-appeal-highlights-shortcomings-of-bite-mark-identifications.html.

Tron, G. (2019, Feb.14). If Ted Bundy’s Trial Was Today, He May Have Walked Free — Thanks To Bite Mark Evidence. Oxygen. Retrieved from https://www.oxygen.com/blogs/how-ted-bundy-got-convicted-is-bite-mark-evidence-credible.