However all of that played out, I did an analysis of the "bite" wounds on the child involved and compared them to the documented photographic measurements of Phineas' jaw and dental structure. An associate of mine, Dr. Ken Cohrn (who is a forensic odontologist with long experience dealing with human remains identification) also did an analysis. And guess what? We both agree that Phineas is not responsible for the alleged bite injury-in fact, we both independently exclude Phineas!
Ken's report is with the legal team (as is mine), but since the reports have now been submitted and are a matter of record I am posting mine here for all to read.
Enjoy!
|
James W. Crosby
CBCC-KA
Certified Behavior Consultant-Canine
*
Jacksonville, Florida * 904-476-7655 * canineaggression@gmail.com
|
30 June 2013
Joseph Simon, Esq.
720 S Ballas Rd
Kirkwood, MO 63122
Dear Mr. Simon:
At your
request I have reviewed materials regarding the alleged bite to a 7 year old
female by a dog known as Phineas, described as a yellow Labrador type male dog.
The alleged bite injury reportedly occurred on 22 June 2012.
The
materials I have reviewed include color photographs of the alleged bite injury,
color photographs examined and analyzed by Mr. Richard Quindry, color
photographs taken of reference materials such as shirt buttons, shirt details,
a hospital bracelet, and a series of color photographs taken by you of the
dentition and jaw details of the dog known as Phineas on 4 June 2013.
Based on
these photographs I have been able to make the following observations, and
reach the following conclusions regarding this incident.
OBSERVATIONS OF THE ACCUSED DOG:
Based on
the photographs supplied of the dog Phineas, I can make the following
observations;
Phineas’
jaws and teeth appear consistent with an adult, healthy Labrador Retriever-type
dog. He possesses full dentition: he shows four full-length canine teeth (two
upper, two lower), twelve incisors (six upper, six lower), and at least twelve
pre-molars (visible in photographs - six upper-three to a side, six lower,
three to a side). This is common dentition for domestic dogs. The canine teeth
are unbroken and in common configuration-uppers falling slightly outside of
alignment with the lowers. The tips of the canine teeth protrude no less than
twice the length of the incisors past the overall level of the incisor tips.
The tips of all four canine teeth are slightly splayed, the lower canines more
pronounced than the uppers.
Phineas’
incisors are slightly irregular. The central lower incisors show tips only
slightly above the line of the gum. The second pair of lower incisors are clearly
slightly longer than the first or third incisors. In the upper jaw the incisors
are clearly defined and separate, with clear points. Phineas is not missing any
of the front teeth.
The
alignment of Phineas’ lower incisors is nearly straight across with minimal
visible bow to the arch of the bite. His upper incisors are only slightly more
bowed.
The line
of premolars is, in both jaws, set within a line stretching from the canines to
the molars. This gives a dog a slightly “hourglass” shape to the palate and the
line of the bite. The front three pre-molars are distinct in the side view
photographs. The front-most of the upper pre-molars are located approximately
17 millimeters posterior to the upper canine teeth; the second upper pre-molar
is approximately 12 mm to the rear of the first pre-molar; the third upper
pre-molar is approximately 16 mm behind the second upper pre-molar. The rear
pre-molars are spaced approximately 74 mm apart across the width of the mouth.
The lower pre-molars are similarly located at distances of 28, 12, and 13 mm
respectively posterior to the lower canines.
OBSERVATIONS
OF THE ALLEGED BITE INJURY PHOTOGRAPH:
The
photograph provided is a color photo of what appears to be the side and front
of a human child. If we orient the photograph so that the visible size tag of
the red shirt worn by the pictured person is to the upper right-hand corner of
the photograph, the alleged bite injury is oriented to the viewer’s upper right
to lower left. The marks visible appear to be clear bruising on human flesh,
mostly reddish to purple in color. The shape of the marking is an elongated
oval, with clear curvature to both ends of the oval. No bruises or marks appear
to be outside the general line of the oval. There appear to be only minor breaks
in the surface of the skin, particularly along the upper longer side of the
oval, all of which seem to be near the center of the long side. No
corresponding breaks in the skin are found on the lower side of the oval.
Exact
measurements of the injury are unavailable at this time since no scale was
included in the photo. Color photographs of identifiable items that are
identified as close or exact copies of the items in the original photos were
obtained by your office. The items that I have used to establish my
measurements of the alleged bite are: 1: the hospital wrist band worn by the
victim in several of the photographs and 2: the large pearl-colored button at
the top of the victim’s aqua-colored shirt, as seen in the photographs. Both of
these items have been measured and documented and both of these items appear to
be parallel to the camera plane in the victim photographs presented, allowing
their use as a measuring standard.
MEASURING
PROCEDURE:
As above
noted, I used the pearl-colored button and the hospital wrist band as constant
measuring standards in order to extrapolate the measurements of the alleged
bite wound. In other photographs provided by your office I was able to
determine that the diameter of the button was 8 mm. Although the button is positioned
slightly behind the plane of the alleged bite in the photograph, this
difference is minimal and would have the effect of making the alleged bite
slightly smaller than the comparison dimensions. The width of the white
markable section of the hospital wrist band is 19 mm, top to bottom. These were
used as standards for comparison.
I then
proceeded to open the photos of the alleged bite, including the photo provided
of the victim showing both the button and the hospital band clearly. Using that
photo I measured the button and the white band area in the photo viewing
software Gimp. In Gimp I measured the button and the band in pixels. Pixel size
is consistent within a single photograph, and as such the number of pixels
across a measured section of a photograph in the same plane and at the same
approximate distance from the focal plane of the camera will be the same. The
button measured 28 pixels across the diameter. The white section of the
hospital band measured 66 pixels across. Giving the known, measured size of the
button and band, we can establish a scale of millimeters that is consistent
within 0.5 pixels.
Using
this as a comparison scale, I then measured the distance between the first and
third clearly visible apparent breaks in the victim’s skin that are angles
lower left to upper right in the photo. These marks are clearly delineated and
are in the same plane, and same distance from the camera focal plane, as both
the button and the wrist band. This should provide a solid measurement with minimal
distortion.
The
measurement across the centers of the three apparent skin breaks was found to
be 9.03 mm (31.4 pixels). I then used this distance to measure the identifying
marks and dimensions of the alleged bite in other close-up photos as the distance
between these clear marks was within the alleged bite, in the same plane as the
alleged bite image, and constant in all photos provided. These measurements
were then compared to the photographically documented measurements of the
accused dog Phineas’ jaw and dentition.
Description “Bite” Phineas
|
Distance
across upper canine teeth
|
29.9mm
|
50.0mm
|
|
Distance
across lower canine teeth
|
18.63mm
|
43.0mm
|
|
Widest
point upper jaw
|
29.9mm
|
74.0mm
|
|
Widest
point lower jaw
|
31.6mm
|
not
taken
|
|
Upper
left incisors #1 to 3
|
10.16mm
|
16.0mm
|
|
Pre-molars
left upper #1 to 3
|
9.03mm
|
29.0mm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CONCLUSIONS:
After
comparing the photo of the alleged bite injury and the photos of the teeth
identified as belonging to Phineas, I can render the following opinion:
1)
The
alleged bite injury is significantly smaller, both in length and in depth, than
the bite likely to be caused by a dog jaw most closely resembling that of
Phineas. The bite measures a maximum width of 31.6mm (lower jaw engagement on
victim). Phineas’ jaw shows a maximum width of 74.0mm, more than twice the size
of the exhibited bite. Phineas’ upper canine teeth are distinct and span a
distance of 50.0mm, nearly two times the span of the most likely canine tooth
contact points on the exhibited bite. The small puncture wound visible in the
photograph (at approximately the one o’clock position on the bite if the bite,
oriented vertically, is regarded as similar to a clock face) was used as a
measuring point in this analysis and helps confirm the fact that the alleged bite
injury is smaller than the verified measurements of Phineas’ bite profile.
2)
The
spacing between the skin break marks that could have been caused by Phineas’
pre-molars are too closely spaced together (9.03mm in the exhibited bite vs.
29.0mm for Phineas) and are located too close to the front of the bite (approximately
2cm to the front of the “bite” arch vs. approximately 3 cm to the canines,
which are significantly posterior to the front arch of the jaw) to have been
made by Phineas.
3)
If the
alleged injury had indeed been caused by Phineas, the force necessary to cause
the clear, distinct bruising would have definitely caused full impact with, and
penetration by, Phineas’ canine teeth, leaving clear and unmistakable puncture
wounds corresponding to the location of Phineas’ canine teeth. These canine
puncture wounds are not evidenced in the photographs. The location of the
single apparent puncture visible in the photographs located towards the
upper-right of the photo image is not consistent with the dental structure of
Phineas.
4)
The arch
of the alleged bite injury does not match that of Phineas: Phineas’ lower
incisors are almost in a straight line. Both front lines of the alleged bite
are clearly arched. The contour of the alleged bite shown is not consistent
with Phineas’ dental structure. In the thousands of known dog bites I have
personally examined the curvature of a typical dog bite is not consistent with
the images shown. If indeed this is a photo of a dog bite it must certainly be
from a jaw of different shape from that of Phineas.
5)
The
clear spacing between the Phineas’ canine teeth and his premolars is missing in
the alleged bite injury bruising.
Although
the alleged bite bruising is not clear enough, or distinct enough, to make a
positive identification as to the cause of the alleged bite injury, there is
sufficient conflict in the measured evidence and physical appearance of the
alleged bite bruising and the jaw of the dog Phineas that I can reasonably
exclude Phineas, to a degree of scientific certainty, as having been the source
of this bruising injury.
Respectfully
submitted.
James W.
Crosby
