Sir, I refer to the article on forensic odontology (BDJ 2011; 210; 363–368) and in particular the observations in the case of H. M. Advocate versus Gordon Hay. The authors state that this was the first person in the UK to be convicted of murder by forensic dentistry, but whilst the bite mark upon which the evidence was based was undoubtedly pivotal in ensuring a conviction, there are two points which may merit some comment.

Firstly it must be questioned whether the bite mark evidence on its own would have been sufficient to convict. In this respect the bite on Linda Peacock's breast proved only that Gordon Hay was responsible, not that he actually murdered her. In itself therefore the bite mark was circumstantial and for conviction to occur it had to be accompanied by other supporting and linked facts which were duly presented by the prosecution. It was this link, rather like the strands of a rope, which was so carefully explained to the jury by Lord Grant the Presiding Judge, prior to their retiring to consider their verdict and allowed them to convict. It would appear this would likely be the case in many cases where bite marks are presented in evidence.

Secondly as far as the admissibility of the bite mark in evidence was concerned, the reason for the Defence challenging this was not related to the scientific nature of the bite mark evidence (the positive features of which they may have been well aware) which their experts opposed (albeit unsuccessfully) in court, but rather the procedural aspect in meeting the required legal standards in the methods used by the police in obtaining evidence. This was related as to whether the police had exceeded their remit in obtaining impressions of the accused before he was formally arrested or charged, which was held not to be normal procedure. However, after appropriate legal submissions Lord Grant, the Presiding Judge, ruled in favour of the prosecution. His ruling was vindicated later on appeal by the unanimous decision of Lord Clyde and his colleagues who dismissed the appeal and ruled that the warrant for recording impressions prior to arrest was quite legal.

Nevertheless subject to these caveats this case was undoubtedly a watershed in detection, in that it established forensic odontology as a recognised and respectable scientific procedure in the fight against crime and provided a platform for future developments.