The bite mark evidence against Ted Bundy was a wound on murder victim Lisa Levy’s left buttock that a forensic dentist matched to Bundy’s distinctively crooked front teeth, using a clear acetate overlay laid over a life-size photograph of the injury. Presented at Bundy’s 1979 trial for the Chi Omega sorority murders, it was the most dramatic physical evidence against him and helped secure two death sentences. In the decades since, the technique that produced it has been repeatedly rejected by scientific reviews as lacking any sound foundation.
Where the Bite Mark Came From
In the early morning of January 15, 1978, an intruder entered the Chi Omega sorority house near the Florida State University campus in Tallahassee. Lisa Levy and Margaret Bowman were killed; two other residents were severely injured, and a fifth woman, Cheryl Thomas, was attacked in a nearby apartment shortly afterward.1Florida Sheriffs Association. Remembering Ted Bundy and the Chi Omega Murders
Tallahassee Police crime scene supervisor Sergeant Howard Winkler found a bite mark on Levy’s body. The attacker had bitten her hard enough to leave clear indentations identifiable as a human bite. Winkler photographed the wound to scale, and that photograph became the central piece of forensic evidence in the case.1Florida Sheriffs Association. Remembering Ted Bundy and the Chi Omega Murders2Florida State University College of Law. Bundy v. State, Opinion
How Investigators Got Bundy’s Teeth
Bundy was arrested in Pensacola on February 15, 1978. Investigators obtained a judge’s warrant authorizing a dental expert to take wax impressions and photographs of his teeth, and models of both upper and lower sets were cast from those impressions.3Justia. Bundy v. State, 455 So. 2d 330
Bundy’s teeth were notably crooked, with misaligned and chipped front teeth that produced an uneven pattern. That irregularity would become the prosecution’s central argument: the more unusual a set of teeth, the harder it should be to attribute the same mark to someone else.
The Courtroom Comparison
Three forensic odontologists examined the evidence and concluded that the bite mark on Levy’s body was consistent with Bundy’s dental pattern: Dr. Richard Souviron, Dr. Lowell Levine, and Dr. Norman Sperber.4Dentalcare. Bite Marks
Souviron, a Miami-area forensic dentist, served as the lead expert. His method was visual and direct. He produced a transparent acetate sheet bearing an impression of Bundy’s teeth and laid it over an enlarged, actual-size photograph of the bite mark. Positioned on the photograph, Souviron told the jury, “They line up exactly!” A second forensic dentist corroborated the conclusion using computer-enhanced photographs.5Oxygen. How Ted Bundy Got Convicted — Is Bite Mark Evidence Credible3Justia. Bundy v. State, 455 So. 2d 330
The experts described human teeth as having wide individual variation and called the technique capable of providing “identification of a high degree of reliability.” Souviron testified that the match held “within a reasonable degree of certainty.” Under cross-examination he was more measured, acknowledging that bite mark analysis is “part art and part science” and that his conclusions were “a matter of opinion.”5Oxygen. How Ted Bundy Got Convicted — Is Bite Mark Evidence Credible
On May 21, 1979, Souviron presented the comparison in court with illustrations of Bundy’s teeth displayed above his head, walking the jury through each matching point.6Florida Memory. Dr. Richard Souviron Testimony Photograph
What the Defense Argued
Bundy’s lawyers challenged the evidence. A Maryland orthodontist testified that Bundy’s dental alignment was not unique and said the same general pattern could be found in roughly 20 percent of the white male population.7NIU. Forensic Dentistry The defense also moved to close the pretrial hearing on admissibility to the public and press, arguing that coverage would prejudice potential jurors. The trial judge denied the motion, and the Florida Supreme Court later upheld that ruling.3Justia. Bundy v. State, 455 So. 2d 330
The Rest of the Case Against Bundy
The bite mark was the most memorable evidence at trial, but not the only evidence. Chi Omega resident Nita Neary identified Bundy as a man she saw leaving the sorority house around 3:00 a.m. carrying a club. Bundy had been seen at a bar next to the house that evening and at his nearby rooming house roughly an hour after the attacks. Hairs found in knotted pantyhose at the Cheryl Thomas scene shared characteristics with his. He had fled from police on two occasions in the weeks after the murders, and he had speculated to housemates on the day of the killings that the attacker was a “professional” who had done similar things before. The Florida Supreme Court held that these items, combined with the bite mark analysis, were “legally sufficient proof of Bundy’s guilt.”3Justia. Bundy v. State, 455 So. 2d 330
On July 24, 1979, the jury convicted Bundy of two counts of first-degree murder, three counts of attempted first-degree murder, and two counts of burglary. He received death sentences for the murders of Levy and Bowman.8KCRA. Ted Bundy Found Guilty of Sorority Sisters’ Killing
How the Science Has Held Up Since
The Bundy case helped establish bite mark comparison as an accepted courtroom technique. That acceptance has since been dismantled by scientific review.
The 2009 National Academy of Sciences Report
The National Academy of Sciences published Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward in 2009. The committee found that most forensic science methods, apart from nuclear DNA analysis, had not been rigorously shown to connect evidence to a specific individual with a high degree of certainty. On bite marks, it stated that it had received “no evidence of an existing scientific basis for identifying an individual to the exclusion of all others.” The report pointed to a lack of standards, inadequate reliability testing, and no established error rates.9National Academies. Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States
The 2016 PCAST Report
The President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology went further in Forensic Science in Criminal Courts: Ensuring Scientific Validity of Feature-Comparison Methods. PCAST concluded that bite mark analysis “does not meet the scientific standards for foundational validity, and is far from meeting such standards.” Examiners could not consistently agree on whether an injury was even a human bite, let alone whose. The council called the technique “entirely subjective,” judged the prospects of developing it into a valid method “low,” and recommended against spending resources on the effort.10Executive Office of the President. Forensic Science in Criminal Courts
The 2022 NIST Review
The National Institute of Standards and Technology published a draft scientific foundation review in 2022 that identified three unsupported premises underlying the technique: that human dental patterns are unique at the individual level, that these patterns transfer reliably to human skin, and that examiners can accurately analyze the resulting marks to include or exclude a suspect. NIST researchers reviewed more than 400 publications and found none of the three established. Skin’s elasticity and tendency to distort undermined the second premise directly.11NIST. Forensic Bitemark Analysis Not Supported by Sufficient Data
What That Has Meant for Other Defendants
The scientific critique is not abstract. At least 36 people have been exonerated after being wrongfully convicted based in part on bite mark evidence, and specialists believe many more remain incarcerated.12NBC News. Bite Mark Analysis Has No Basis in Science A National Institute of Justice analysis of 44 bite mark cases in the National Registry of Exonerations found that 77 percent contained at least one case error.13NIJ. Impact of False or Misleading Forensic Evidence on Wrongful Convictions
Ray Krone was arrested in 1991 for a Phoenix murder based primarily on bite mark comparison, with the prosecution’s expert calling the match “100%” certain. DNA testing in 2002 excluded him and identified the actual killer. Krone spent ten years in prison and became the 100th person exonerated from death row in the United States since 1976.14Death Penalty Information Center. Bite Mark Comparison15Innocence Project. Keith Allen Harward16Virginia Code Commission. Chapter 617, Acts of Assembly 2017
One detail connects the Bundy case directly to this record. Dr. Lowell Levine, one of the three experts who matched the bite mark to Bundy’s teeth, was also among the dentists who falsely identified Harward as the source of bite marks in his case.15Innocence Project. Keith Allen Harward
Where Bite Mark Evidence Stands in Court Today
Despite the scientific consensus, no U.S. court has categorically ruled bite mark evidence inadmissible. Its use has declined sharply, and defense attorneys have had growing success blocking it, but prosecutors still try to introduce it in some jurisdictions. Courts have generally treated reliability concerns as a question of weight for the jury to assess rather than a threshold admissibility issue, an approach that has drawn increasing criticism.12NBC News. Bite Mark Analysis Has No Basis in Science
The American Board of Forensic Odontology has narrowed what its examiners may say, limiting findings to “exclude,” “not exclude,” or “inconclusive” rather than definitive identifications. The Texas Forensic Science Commission recommended a moratorium on bite mark testimony in 2016. Six states have adopted provisions allowing people convicted on discredited science to challenge their convictions.17Innocence Project. Why Bite Mark Evidence Should Never Be Used in Criminal Trials The practice is not recognized by the American Dental Association or the FBI.18Innocence Project. Bite Mark Evidence Deemed Unreliable
The Bundy case shows both faces of the technique. The acetate overlay Souviron placed over the photograph of Lisa Levy’s body convinced a jury in 1979 and put a serial killer on death row. The same type of evidence has since sent innocent people to prison, and the scientific community has concluded that the method was never reliable enough to justify either result.