{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019400352733686066, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.795918367346939, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Good bite mark evidence: a case report.

Bite mark analysis is unquestionably the most difficult, and contentious, work undertaken by forensic odontologists. Each injury must be assessed to determine if it was made by human or animal teeth, if the quality of the evidence allows presentation to a Court of Law, and if the pattern can be reasonably compared to a suspect dentition. Many injuries examined by forensic odontologists do not meet these criteria. A case is presented in which a Victim Statement could be corroborated, with evidence of good probative value.