The Biggar Murder: Dental, medical, police and legal aspects of a case “ in some ways unique, difficult and puzzling.”

THE BIGGAR M U R D E R Dental, medical, police and legal aspects of a case '' in some ways unique, difficult and puzzling."

WARREN HARVEYl, OSBORNE BUTLER=, JOHN FURNESS3 and RONALD LAIRD4, with a note on the law by ALISTAIR R. BROWNLIES and a Foreword by KEITH SIMPSOh'6.

1. M.R.C.S., L.R.C.P., F.D.S. (Glas.), F.D.S. (Edin.), F.D.S. (Eng.), Consultant to Glasgow Dental Hospital, Lecturer to Glasgow ~lniversity, Lecturer i n Forensic Dentistry to the Police.

2. A.I.I.P., A.R.P.S., Detective Insfiector, Identi3cation Bureau, City of Glasgow Police.

3. L.D.S. (Durh.), Home Ofice Lecturer i n Forensic Dentistry to the Police.

4. B.D.S., H.D.D., F.D.S. (Glas.), Lecturer to the Dental Hospital, Glasgow University.

5. M.A., LL.R., Solicitor, Supreme Courts, Edinburgh.

6. M.A.(Oxon.), M.D.(Path.), Lond., F.C.Path., D.M.J. , Professor of Forensic Medicine, University of London ; Head of the Departnzent of Forensic Medicine, Guy's Hospital Medical School, London; I.rctzrrer i n 170rrnsic Medicine, Ilnioersity of Oxford.

A Scottish case of murder is described in which the evidence to sztpport conviction was entirely circumstantial. T h e principal evidence incriminating the accused youth, which the trial judge described as of paramount im$ortance, concerned three bite-marks on the body of the victim. These were shown to be explicable as having been caused by the accused's teeth. I n addition they included unique ring marks made by Pits in teeth resulting from hypoplasia and hypocalciJication. T h e accused's teeth showed matching characteristics. T o preserve the evidence of the accused's characteristics the unparalleled step of comPelling submission to the taking of dental impressions was sanctioned, a procedure which, though challenged, was approved and commended on appeal. Consideration i s given to the dental research necessary before, during and after the case, and the literature i s extensively reviewed. T h e implications for future work of this kind are briejly considered, and the new receptive- ness of the Scottish Courts to careful scientiJic evidence noted.

Sequence of Main Events 1967 August 6th Murder.

August 16th-20th 1st series of dental impressions of 29 persons. September 4th 2nd series of dental impressions of 5 persons short-

listed. September 11th Hay considered to be sole suspect on dental

evidence. September 20th Dental evidence shown to Professor Keith Simpson.

Need stressed for further impressions to record special details of Hay's teeth.

September 26th Warrant of Sheriff. September 27th 3rd series of dental impressions of Hay's teeth. November 23rd Arrest. November 24th Hay charged with murder.

1968 February 26th Trial. March 12th Judgement of Lord Grant. May 17th Appeal refused.

157

INTRODUCTION

The Locus. Biggar is a prosperous little town of two to three thousand people, lying in a broad vale below, and midway between, Glasgow and Edinburgh. I t has a wide main street and nearby St. Mary's Church dates back to 1545; in its churchyard lie the ancestors of William Ewart Gladstone.

The Crime. There was a travelling fair-"the showsH-in the public square in Biggar on Saturday, August 5th, 1967, so that in the neighbourhood were many people from towns and villages roundabout. Early on Monday morning (Muncie, 1968) a girl, Linda Peacock, aged 15, was found murdered in the cemetery of St. Mary's Church in Canvood Road (Figure 1); she had been strangled and there were wounds on her head, bite-marks and a burn on her body; her clothes were pulled under her as she had been dragged along the ground; her breasts were bare but her pants were undisturbed. Overlooking the cemetery is Loaningdale approved school, a state school for young offenders; 110 days later a boy from this school was arrested and charged with the murder. Lord Grant, the Lord Justice Clerk (Gibb, 1928) in his charge to the jury described the case as "a classic example of circumstantial evidence, not enough to prove the suspect guilty; for this reason the dental and pathological evidence is of paramount importance. I t has been a grave, serious, and in some ways a unique case, difficult and puzzling".

Violence. On March 4th, 1968, the Secretary of State for Scotland told the House of Commons that crimes of violence in Scotland had in recent years increased as follows:-

1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967

1,829 1,936 2,276 2,629 2,929 3,536

Approved Schools. In Scotland there are 26 approved schools, 8 for girls and 18 for boys, with 1,600 pupils. These are not penal institutions designed to segregate children from the community and so there are no bars on windows, high walls or barbed wire, no security patrols or warders. They are run by a Board of Management with a headmaster, teachers and a house mother. The cost for boarding these difficult types of juveniles is approximately Q,200 a year each, shared equally between the local education authorities and the govern- ment. The first a~proved school was founded in 1841 by Sheriff Watson, of Aberdeen, as the Ragged or Industrial School; now, as then, education is considered of first importance.

Loaningdale approved school at Biggar is reputed to have cost ,660,000 and was opened in 1963; up until the spring of 1967 it has been estimated that ,6138,000 has been spent on alterations and equipment. In Aberdeen the headmaster in April, 1968, told a conference of the Institute for the Studv of Treat- ment of Delinquents that efforts should be made to create pride and happiness in these schools leaving the pupils with an "old school tie" feeling. I t was claimed that Loaningdale specially selected those individuals likely to respond to short term treatment through greater self-discipline. 31 boys were there for theft, 3 for truancy and 2 for road traffic offences. Selection depended on the boy's record, intelligence quotient, family his tor^ and willingness to co-operate. The Board of Management included a Scottish judge, a peer, the Provost, two ministers, a doctor and six other local residents.

Linda Karen Peacock was born on April 19th, 1952, and lived with her father (65), a retired electrical engineer, and her mother (55) in a cottage near Biggar-about a mile past the cemetery. She was the youngest of four brothers and three sisters, all of whom were away from home at the time of the murder. She was a fourth-year pupil at the local school, a bright, lively and attractive girl. She spent most of her free time with horses at the local stables at Huntfield House, had taken part in many agricultural shows, and won many rosettes and

prizes. She had been friendly with a boy who had left Loaningdale, and was fond of music and dancing-just like other local girls, but she was a quiet girl of good character.

Gordon Hay, the accused youth, was the youngest son of a farm labourer, born on February 12th, 1950, about 18 miles from Aberdeen. Two years later the family moved to Mains of Schivas, near Tarves, 7 miles away. In his final year at the secondary school at Methlick he was sports champion and played football for the school. He was the only boy in his class to fail his junior Scottish Leaving Certificate; he then worked in a butcher's shop in Aberdeen, and lived with a married sister. He was very fond of his father who died suddenly the day after Gordon's 16th birthday in 1966. After the trial his mother said "If his father had been alive, none of this might ever have happened". He had numerous acquaintances but no close friends; he regularly visited his mother at Methlick but saw her only once after she moved. His mother said he was well-liked, kind- hearted and never did a vicious thing in his life. He had a mania for cars which he had learned to drive on the farm. In Aberdeen lie got into bad company, boasting and pretending to be a wealthy young man-about-town. After being charged with the unlawful removal of vehicles and breaking into a factory, he arrived at Loaningdale in January, 1967. While at the school he worked part- time at a garage in Biggar, but this only lasted a week as he was said to be lazy and surly. Hay's headmaster had decided that he was an unsuitable pupil and arrangements had been made for him to be moved to Rossie House Farm approved school in Angus-a stricter school-at the end of July. The transfer came through four days after the murder.

PRELUDE AND PLOT (i) Gordon Hay-The Accused Youth. In June, Miss Valentine Aitkenhead

(25) came from another school to Loangingdale as the new house-mother. Shortly after her arrival she asked Hay to fill her petrol cigarette lighter. He did not return it, and it became a joke between them. She let him keep it when he left the school in August.

On Friday, August 4th, some of the boys from the school were at camp at Montrose; at a barbecue on the beach one boy (15) found a metal hook about a foot long in a boat, and took it back to Loaningdale.

On Saturday, August 5th, Hay returned from leave in Edinburgh at 4-35 p.m., then with a student master and two boys from the school, he went to the cinema in Biggar. Hay and a boy of 16 bought some sweets as they left the cinema about 8-45 p.m. They went on to the fair where they met Linda Peacock with a girl friend. Linda spoke to Hay for less than a minute. Later Hay made a remark to his friend which meant that he wouldn't mind having sexual inter- course with her -"just a passing remark, often used in the school". As previously arranged, Linda met her parents and went home with them in their car.

The boy who found the boat hook was in Hay's dormitory; when he saw the hook Hay said it would be useful for fighting in Biggar. This same boy was playing with some brown string and showed Hay a trick-like "cat's cradle"; two people looped the string twice round their hands and pulled two of the strands with their teeth, drawing closer to each other. The trick fascinated Hay and he put the string in his pocket.

Boys from Loangingdale were only allowed out in the evenings on Saturdays, when they usually went to the cinema; on Sundays they went to church. How- ever, unofficial exits or escapes were known to take place, and the call sound of an owl hoot from a girl rarely went unanswered; if caught on the way out, the boys simply said they were "hunting rats".

159

On Sunday morning, August Gth, Hay told another boy that he thought he would go to Biggar that day, and the boy advised him not to. In the afternoon Hay played football, in the evening he had supper and played whist in a com- petition. With another boy he won the prize of some continental cigarettes given by the deputy headmaster who had just brought them back from a holiday in Jugoslavia-this was about 9-40 p.m. About 5 minutes later this master saw Hay in a dressing gown. What happened in the next few minutes may never be known; a master said he saw Hay smoking in the dining room just before 10 p.m. A few moments later Hay said he checked his watch with another boy and the gardener, and watched television. The boy who found the boat hook vent to hisdormitory-which he and another boy shared with Hay-and on

Figure 1. Linda Peacock was found in the old cemetery of Saint Mary's Church. The playing fields and Loaningdale Approved School are beyond. 1, 7 and 8 are blood, 2, 3 and 4 are

coins, 5 is a comb, 6 is a purse.

Hay's bed were pyjamas and a dressing gown; the hook which he kept on top of his wardrobe had gone. He then searched for Hay in the bathrooms, dormi- tories, games room, sitting and dining rooms, but Hay was nowhere to be found. With the other boy, he then returned to his dormitory, went to bed and fell asleep. He wakened with a door slamming, and saw Hay wearing a school jersey, jeans, and socks. Hay did not seem to realise that the boy was awake, and did not speak to him. The boy said that Hay's hair was untidy and he looked as if he had been gardening. He had been sweating and had drawn his hand across his face; the knees of his jeans were dirty, as if he had been kneeling down. Hay washed hurriedly, put on pyjamas and got into bed. Almost at once a master came in, put out the light and said good-night about 10-30 p.m. Next morning the boy found the boat hook in the bottom of his wardrobe, where he had carefully searched the night before. Early that day, quite routinely, Hay's jeans were washed.

160

(ii) Linda Peacock-The Girl Victim. Linda Peacock spent that Sunday afternoon grooming and exercising horses a t a local farm. In the evening she was watching television a t home with Andrew Moir, a friend of the family, who was staying with them temporarily. He was about to leave for Biggar about 8-30 p.m., when Linda suddenly asked if she could get a lift in his car. He offered to drive her back home later, but this she declined. In Biggar she met a girl friend and they went to a cafe. Her companion left a t about 9-30 p.m., and Linda was seen to turn into a short street leading to Carwood Road, her only way home, which passed the cemetery. David Lennox (67) was talking to a friend a t the door of his house when Linda joined them. She chatted about horses and ponies for about 20 minutes, and was seen by several people passing by. She left them and about 70 yards further on, almost a t the gates of St. Mary's cemetery, she was seen by a farmer who had known her all her life. He did not stop because he had his dogs with him in the farm van, and thought it was too dirty to offer her a lift. Two people passed in a car and saw a couple about 15 yards inside the gates; they commented that a cemetery was a strange place for courting. A bank manager also saw a couple between the cemetery and Loaningdale school, as he drove home to Carnwath. When home he put on his television, and later the police determined that it was 10-20 p.m. when he saw the couple in the cemetery. Just about this time three people heard screams which seemed to come from the cemetery. Mr. and Mrs. Peacock had been a t Carluke on Sunday afternoon and Linda was not a t home when they arrived back. After waiting and then enquiring from friends and relations, they told the police. Police Constables Riddell and Murray were informed while on patrol about the missing girl. Early next morning they noticed that the gate into the older part of the cemetery was open, stopped the van and found Linda (Figure 2) a t 6-40 a.m. near where the courting couple had been seen the previous night. She was lying between tomb stones under a yew tree, in the branches of which was some brown string. Almost immediately an express message summoned the area detectives and the Regional Crime Squad officers.

Post Mortem. Detective Sergeant John Paton (19 years' police service) took a t least 15 photographs of the body particularly showing the breasts before it was moved in the cemetery, and later in the mortuary (Figure 3); ultra violet lighting was not used. This post mortem was carried out in Glasgow 19 hours after death by Dr. J. A. Imrie and Dr. I>. P. Weir. There was generalised rigor mortis and a temperature of 73°F. There was a ligature mark round the neck, well defined on the front and sides, less marked a t the back of the neck. There were two lacerated wounds on the head; there was a ligature mark around the left wrist and below this was an area blackened, due to scorching, and a blister. There were three bruises on the left forearm and another bruise on the tip of the right ring finger; on the inner lower quadrant of the right breast was an oval area of bruising suggesting a bite. There was a bruise to the left of the left nipple, and a curved area of bruising on the left side of the neck below the ligature mark. The girl was virgo intacta.

Hearing over coffee a t Police Headquarters of the bite-mark, Detective Inspector Osborne Butler went a t once to the mortuary and saw the bite-marks on the breast. He suggested that dental help might be of value and should be sought. This was agreed, but contact was not easy as Dr. Warren Harvey was wandering round Ulster in a motor caravan. I t was achieved by Sergeant Richey and his staff a t Bushmills by the evening of August 10th. An offer to return a t once was made, but this was not considered necessary as the body had by then been buried. Detective Chief Superintendent W. Muncie and Superintendent J. Weir had an enormous task-3,000 people were interviewed in the first week; they had a short list of 29 persons who could possibly be involved in the case.

161

Figure 2. The victim was clearly dragged herc feet first. The bite-mark on her right breast can even bc seen from this distance. The vertical direction of the clotted blood in front of

her lelt ear is important.

Figure 3. In the mortuary the marks on the breast and neck are seen. The ligature mark is most marked anteriorly. The mark caused after her brassiere had been pulled up is clearly seen. The blood in front of the left ear must have clotted when she was vertical.

I am asked t o agree t o having my den ta l impressions talcen.

I have been t o l d t h a t t h i s i s i n r e l a t i o n t o t he inves t iga t ion i n t o the death of Linda Peacock on 6/7th August, 1967, a t Biggar.

It has been made c l e a r t o me t h a t I can refuse a t t h i s s tage t o have t h i s done. It h a s a l so been made c l e a r t o me t h a t should my denta l impressions be l inked with o the r evidence i n the case they may be produced i n evidence.

I have a l s o been to ld t h a t I may have the se rv i ces of a s o l i c i t o r before agreeing t o having the impressions taken.

I do want t h e se rv i ces of a s o l i c i t o r . do not

I a r e e t o have my denta l impressions taken. &e

..................... Signature

....................... Date

Witness ...................... Figure 4. The form used to obtain voluntary signatures before impressions were taken

of the original list of 29 persons, and the short list of 5 persons. 183

DENTAL INVESTIGATION

Preliminary procedure. I t was suggested that alginate dental impressions and plaster models should be obtained for each of these 29 persons after written permission (Figure 4) had been given. Strom (1963) had experienced considerable difficulty in obtaining impressions of a suspect. As suggested, Glasgow Dental Hospital was approached and arrangements were made for impressions to be taken by Professor M. Gibson and Mr. R. Laird. Impressions of one person were taken locally, the others including those of Hay were taken between August 16th and 22nd ("the first series of dental impressions") and models were cast by Mr. Grant Miller. Close examination of the models was commenced on August 22nd; each model was identified only by a number and scrupulous care was maintained to avoid the slightest hint as to the identity of the subjects or the parties on whom suspicion was beginning to focus.

During Dr. Warren Harvey's cross examination a t the trial the defence counsel, Mr. W. I. Stewart, Q.C., in a most gentlemanly manner-but with the skill of a surgeon opening up layer by layer possibly to reveal something that might be pathological, asked "In this particular case were you learning as you went along?" This question had been anticipated so it was possible to answer without too much shame or chagrin, "Yes, but it is accepted that few people in the world have worked on more than a handful of cases (Gustafson, 1966); in contrast, Professor Keith Simpson has had at least 7 cases which, I think, qualifies him for the Guinness Book of Records".

For various reasons it is important to state that much of the dental investigation had to be carried out by only two of the team, on whom may rest the responsibility-and possibly any opprobrium-of the conduct of the dental aspects of the case. Our previous experience encompassed 15 years' experience of identification of marks made by instruments and ballistics, and a very rare case convicted by a bite-mark (Butler, 1966) proved with less evidence than in the case described by Smith (1940). Apart from this, work has been done on identification by dental means (Harvey, 1966, 1967, 1968), lectures were being given to the Scottish Police Detective Training Schools, and there was personal knowledge of a somewhat bizarre collection of cases such as a bite-mark on a breast by a baby whose teeth erupted during breast-feeding, bite-marks made by children fooling or momentarily furious, dog bites more in fun than frenzy ("love nips"), cat bites on a fellow student during the period of midwifery- teaching when he rashly offered his services to his landlady's cat in labour, and finally bites from a parrot, a ferret and an adder. Thus it was that a t this time our pool of knowledge concerning bite-marks might fairly be described as wide but shallow. Again for various reasons practically no clinical dentistry had been done for the last 4 years by one of us (a conservative estimate of 80 to 100,000 patients had been seen by then); it was, therefore, considered propitious to seek the help of an able and active colleague (R.L.) who carried out all the clinical work after we had obtained the 29 sets of models. After the arrest we were joined by the fourth member of the team, John Furness, Home Office lecturer to the Liverpool police and now chairman of the Liverpool Forensic Dental Study Group. His wide experience of forensic odontology included 5 bite cases, and his analysis of the 29 sets of plaster models produced by the prosecution and 31 of the 50 sets produced by the defence, did so much to strengthen the dental evidence against Hay by confirmation and corroboration (Editorial, 1938). Throughout the next six months we realise most gratefully that we had help from 50 to 100 people and the closest co-operation and encouragement from members of the police in Lanarkshire, in Glasgow and a t New Scotland Yard, and from personnel in Glasgow Dental Hospital and a t Guy's Hospital, London.

164

The 29 Persons. On August 22nd a start was made to study the photographs of the marks on the breast (Figure 5 ) and the 29 sets of plaster models. Originally it was considered that the assailant must have sharp or jagged teeth to produce the abrasion opposite 12 on the scale in the photograph-the mark was too big to have been caused by an intact incisor, canine or pre-molar tooth. To explain the gaps between the marks it was thought that teeth could be missing or that the biting edges (the occlusal level) of the teeth must be quite irregular.

Figure 5. The right breast, feet above and head below. I t is intentionally dark to show all the marks and central area due to suction.

I t was considered that human rather than animal (dog or fox) teeth caused the bite-marks because the area was almost circular or just oval, and in any orientation either arch on the photograph is too nearly semi-circular and human in shape rather than narrowing U-shape like an animal (Gustafson, 1966; Furu- hata and Yamamato, 1967). Above all, the central area so typically caused by sucking is utterly uncharacteristic of any animal bite or accidental injury and is characteristically in a position commonly seen in human attacks. I t was merely of interest in passing to note that the intercanine distance of a labrador dog was 40 millimetres and that of a little stray fox-like mongrel (Gorbals tyke) was 25 millimetres. Fearnhead (1963) had described some of the problems of a case of dog bite.

Because of the position of the bite, it clearly could not be self-inflicted (Ron- chase, 1944).

Because of the reaction around the marks, it was considered that the bite took place before or about thc timc of death, for the marks, though few, were still distinct. Margery Gardner, Heath's first victim, was bitten on the breast and had both nipples bitten off, but she lived long enough for bruising to spread and mask the characteristics of the teeth (Simpson, 1947, 1951).

In considering further possible reasons for the gaps between the marks, it helped to remember that Keiser-Nielsen (1967) wrote "Bite marks can never be taken to reproduce accurately the dental conditions of the originator, and

165

represent but the remaining and fixed picture of an action, and often include only a very limited number of teeth". I t seemed that an appropriate analogy was a footprint in sand near the edge of the sea. I t sounds obvious but is worthy of recall that Korkhaus (1955) wrote "teeth will leave impressions only in those areas where the bite is sufficiently strong to leave marks". This was clearly

shown in the marks on Mrs. GorringeJs breast where marks of only 32:]+ were

seen-but these were very clear and irregular (Simpson, 1951); her husband who murdered her had all his anterior teeth present.

Suzuki and Kawasaki (1966) wrote "In cases having only a few bite-marks their determination has been thought to be extremely difficult". As we looked a t our three main marks in the bite area, we endorsed these sentiments whole- heartedly but with little comfort. Sorup (1924) considered that 3 or 4 teeth- marks were sufficient for a positive identification; Berg and Schaidt (1954) had 100 individuals make 5,000 bites in plasticine and after a most painstaking comparison they concluded that correlation between 4 to 5 adjacent teeth were required before a positive identification should be made. We felt that such is the difference between plasticine and skin th:.t this conclusion should be kept in context. Camps (1968) states that it is unlikely that one will ever find more than the marks produced by the incisal and cuspal surfaces of the anterior teeth; in contrast Nakamura (1953) had experimentally bitten two women, and declared that even 15 teeth-including molars-could leave marks on the belly of a thin woman. Simpson (1951) and Strom (1963) both describe cases where 6 teeth-marks were present; those cases were the first in Great Britain and Norway respectively where the suspects were convicted of murder mainly on the evidence of bite-marks. When considering the Kennedy murder, a Panel Discussion (1966) referred to the problem of the numerical requirements of proof. In the comparison of fingerprints, though most countries have no legal requirement, the following points of similarity are in practice looked for:- France 17, Great Britain 16, Switzerland 12 to 14, Austria at least 12, Spain 10 to 12, Germany 8 to 12 (Enklaar, 1964). Does this mean that with similar evidence in different countries, proof may be easier in one place than another? The recent statement of Keiser-Nielsen (1968) that "We know of no minimum number of concordant points which will permit us to claim identity", is of the utmost importance. A similar thought had been expressed by J. Edgar Hoover in a letter to M. H. Mahta in F.B.I. 1959 Policy (1965).

Strom (1963) and Korkhaus (1955) refer to the importance and problems of orientating the suspects' teeth to the marks on the skin.

At this stage, then, we were mostly concerned with the survey of the 29 sets of models to determine the cause of the abrasion, the reason for the gaps leaving so few marks on the skin, and the orientation. Models numbered 4 and 16 both had full upper and lower dentures with monotonous regularity of teeth-they were excluded for this reason and because it was considered that a bite of this intensity demanded natural teeth. Another 22 of the models were excluded either because the incisors were so level with the canines that gaps would be most unlikely, or because such irregularity of position or shape occurred that would reveal them readily. This sieving process was repeated several times; each set of models was compared with transparencies of the breast (natural size) in any orientation they might possibly fit. Eventuallv a short list of 5 sets of models emerged, numbered 6, 11, 14, 19 and 26. 28 was reconsidered and rejected again.

The Short List of 5 Persons. At this time of the 5 sets of models, number 14 111 seemed the most likely as v2 were missing and no dentures were worn.

A transparent print of the marks on the breast seemed to fit the models reasonably well with the rotated sharp edged lower right canine causing the abrasion opposite the 12 mark on the scale in the photograph (Figure 6).

166

Strengthening the Enquiry. I t seemed important at this stage to make clear to Chief Superintendent Muncie and the Crown Authorities that the case was loaded with problems, and that even if these were overcome it might be difficult to convince a jury to convict on three isolated marks. I t was suggested that advice should be sought from a forensic scientist with considerable personal knowledge of the dental aspects of proving identity from bite-marks. Names were given of men known personally from 4 nations. A decision was made and a visit arranged to the pathologist Keith Simpson, Professor of Forensic Medicine of the University of London, at Guy's Hospital. I t seems appropriate to quote "Nil me officit unquam-est quia doctior" (Horace B.C.65-8). Few, if any, men in the world have been endowed through circumstance, opportunity and ability to acquire more experience in this particular forensic medical and dental field. And so, a visit was made to Professor Keith Simpson and Dr. M. N. Naylor in London on August 29th, 1967. In view of the difficulties of the case it was decided to mount the models on a modified articulator or hinge so that trial bites could be made on a breast in the mortuary to see if any of the marks so made by Numbers 6, 11, 14, 19 and 26 would resemble the marks shown in the photograph. I t was important first to check the occlusal movements of each of the 5 persons and set models up on an articulator as a record. I t was decided to make the models in acrylic resin which would be tougher than plaster or stone models.

Through the kindness of Dr. Henry Noble and Professor Tom White, of Glasgow Dental Hospital, arrangements were made for taking on 4th September, alginate dental impressions of the five persons ("the second series of dental impressions") together with face-bow registrations of the movements of the jaws. The models were made in acrylic resin and set up on a Dentatus articulator by Mr. John Jarvie and Mr. John Graham. When these articulated models were studied with the photographs and transparencies, it was obvious at once that Number 14 could not possibly have made the bite on the breast; these models could only be made to fit the bite if the occlusal plane of the lower teeth was tilted horizontally 30 to 40 degrees-an anatomical impossibility.

I t was then necessary to re-examine all 29 sets of models, confirm the short list, consider each set of models in relation to the four main possible orientations, and re-examine more carefully the m a r k on the breast. I t may be difficult to understand, but only now were the two ring marks on the breast seen as being most unusual and possibly, therefore, highly significant.

The Marks on the Breast The right breast with the body horizontal was roughly a 10 centimetre segment

of a circle 18 centimetres in diameter. About 15 millimetres to the left of the right nipple there was a bruise mark, just oval (Figure 6), approximately 33 millimetres wide and 40 millimetres long; in the centre was a darker area about 10 millimetres in diameter. Opposite the inch scale at 12 is a very dark oval area C about 13 by 7 millimetres with a number of light linear marks on it. Nearer the nipple are 2 dark rings-A appears circular about 1 millimetre diameter, while E is larger, about 1 by 2 millimetres; in the centre of each is a paler area the same colour approximately as the surrounding breast. Other marks can be seen, particularly in Figure 5, but there is little definition of these.

I t was considered that the dark central area in the midst of the oval was a cluster of petechial haemorrhages quite characteristic of a "suck-mark". Becaues of its size, the abrasion C was caused by more than one tooth of normal size. No description resembling the ring marks A and E could be found in the literature; it was possible, therefore, that these might be caused by unusual teeth leaving highly characteristic marks. I t will be remembered that originally the 29 sets of models were scrutinised to see if any of them could have caused the abrasion C and the other marks leaving gaps between them. If the pre- requisites were correct thenthe short list of 5 sets should contain 1 set of models

with teeth which could cause marks like A and E. This was found to be true, as seen in the analysis of the models given in Tables 1 and 2 below.

Analysis of the 5 sets of models disclosed the following relevant factors:- TABLE 1

No. Occlusion Figure Teeth Sharp edges Rotation Gaps missing (fracture caries exist

wear) between these teeth

14 2 9 6 111 6 21 2? 112 5432 12345 Div. 1 621 1126 313 3135 543 1345

26 Edge to 11 13467 All remaining 531 1 25 15 - -- -- edge 876 1561 teeth and roots 31 4321 11238

TABLE 2

No. Special Features

6 Overeruption of 65 145 into edentulous gaps in the lower jaw. Considerable --

and characteristic attrition of anterior teeth. Distal corner of 1 I missing. -

Linear groove of incisal edges of due to loss of enamel between outer and

inner walls of tooth. 31

Distal corner and half the incisal edge of 11 fractured leaving a triangular area with rounded corners, broadest near the contact point with 12. In this area there are two pimples or protuberances. Half way up the mesial side of 12 near the contact point with 11 there is a cavity of such a shape as to suggest that a filling is missing. The mesial corner of is fractured. The

tips of l 3 are ground flat; in the tips of 3 1 and are quite definite discrete I ? - I -

pits approximately 1 by 2 millimetres and 1 by 1 millimetre in size tively.

respec-

Marked rotation of 313. Proclination and mesial tilting of 2 12. No denture - work.

Gross caries. 12 overlapping and tilted towards 1 I with mesial corner missing. The crown of 2 1 is missing-this might have been a post crown, for the root canal is wide open. Characteristic imbrication of the 4 lower incisors with flattened incisal edges.

1 \ 1 2 Gross caries. "Bite of convenience" on - -- only; considerable attrition 1 1123

with very flat incisal edges of these teeth 2-1 are both broken away almost to 21

gum margins.

The temptation to press the plaster models of the upper and lower right canines of Number 11, with the pits in the tips, into the nail bed of a thumb was irresistible; for the first time marks were seen which resembled the ring marks on the girl's breast (A and E in Figure 6). All the 29 pairs of models were carefully checked to see if any of them had any tooth with pits similar to those of Number 11, but not one was seen. I t was, however, a surprise to realise

I68

Figure 6. The right breast (enlarged s 1.5) showing clearly the ring marks A and E and the abrasion C. The guide lines for the orientation of the bite are shown.

that models of persons now known to be between 14 and 18 could show such marked flattening of the tips of canines due to grinding or abrasion; three of us were present when impressions were taken of the short list of 5 persons.

Orientation of the assailant relative to the victim is of the utmost importance (Sorup, 1924). An attempt was made to analyse the main possible directions of attack, as shown in Table 3.

TABLE 3

Those 3 tables summarize the reasons why it was thought probable that Number 11 could have made the marks on Linda Peacock's breast; the fractured upper left central and the cavity in the upper left lateral could have caused the abrasion; only Kumber 11 had pits in the upper and lower right canines which could have caused the ring marks. If these postulates were true then the assailant must have come over the girl's right shoulder from above or behind, as shown in the right panel of Table 3. Since, to put it mildly, this seemed strange, a further attempt was made to orientate the other 4 short-listed models, as shown in Table 4.

IF TnE UPPER ARCH IS

COMPOSED O F :- ( F I G U R E 6 )

The authorities were then told that we were considering only Number 11, and again warned of the numerical scarcity of points on which identification would be based. Only at this stage (after 11th September) was it revealed to us in confidence that our choice, Number 11, was Gordon Hay, in whom the Police were most interested. Because the ring marks seen in normal lighting were so unusual it was considered most important that we should confer again with Professor Keith Simpson at Guy's Hospital in London. We there decided on September 20th, 1967, that the evidence was sufficient to justify further consideration of Hay's teeth, purely to demonstrate confirmatory detail.

The Sole Suspect and the Warrant. Since August the press had reported considerable disquiet in Biggar, where the public felt that "nothing was being done" to solve the murder or relieve their apprehension. A petition to bring back capital punishment, with 20,000 names on it, had been taken to London. I t was felt that the time was not propitious to make an arrest, so in order to ensure that further impressions of Hay's teeth could be taken, application was made by the Crown authorities for a Warrant to authorise this (Figure 12).

170

c D B

THEN THE ASSAILANT$ HEAD

C B A

THE GIRL'S BREAST FROM:-

THEN THE ABRASION C MUST BE DUE TO :-

THEN THE RING MARKS A AND E MUST BE DUE 10:-

A

HER RIGHT

D C E

BELOW

321

HER LEFT

112 OR 123

OR BEHIND

L12 OR 123

TABLE 4

Orientation of the 5 short listed models No.

6 Althougll the fractured 1 I might cause the abrasion C, it is very unlikely that 11 would not show aiso in the bite as their incisal edges are so level; the widthof these two teeth together is much greater than that of the abrasion. With 3 1 absent, the width of 4 1 to 13 is much greater than the distance between any marks on the breast. 1t5 unlikely that thesc teeth made the bite.

If this assailant's head approached the breast from above or behind, then the marks : A B C D E-

could be duc to: 111 112 11 2 This is most likely.

If this assailant's head approached the breast from the right and below, the abrasion C could have been made by 32 1 . A much more definite mark would be expected from 12 than is seen at^. I t could be expected that the rotated 3T3 would leave quite characteristic linear marks rather than the rings a t A and E. I t was seen on the anatomical articulator that the planc of the lower teeth would have to tilt laterally 35 degrees in order to make marks in the positions seen on the breast. This is utterly unlikely.

If this assailant's head approached the breast from the right, the abrasion C might have been made by 1 I I and 3 1 and could cause D with the missing -- crown of 2 1 , accounting for t h e gap. However, the level occlusal line of the lower incisors would give cntircly characteristic marks, and certainly not the rings of A and E; Number 19 can therefore be excluded.

If this assailant also approached from the right then it might be thought that the abrasion C could be caused by 11 1, with 3J causing D; but it is quite inconceivable that thc carious 3p caused the ring marks A and E. This pcrson must be excluded.

CONFIRMATORY PROCEDURE On September 27th, 1967, Hay was seen again a t Glasgow Dental Hospital

by 3 of us. Copper ring and composition impressions were taken of the 4 canine teeth ("the third series of dental impressions"); duplicate full upper and lower impressions were taken in Kerr's Permlastic rubber. The movements of the jaw were checked with those previously recorded on the Dentatus articulator. The ring marks A and E (Figure 6) are approximately 22 millimetres apart; to simulate the bite with compressed tissue between the teeth, a wooden spacer was inserted within a wax bite block so that the anterior teeth would register their position when 12 millimetres apart. This is an arbitrary assessment of the compression of 22 millimetres of breast by the bite. Right or wrong, it gave an additional check to the settings of the condyle path on the articulator (Trapozzano and Lazzari, 1967).

The Pits in two Teeth Considerable thought had been given to the appearance, cause and survival

of the pits in the right canines. The pits were clearly seen in the mouth and photographed in black and white (Figures 13, 14, 15) and colour by Mr. J. Davies, of the Photographic Department, and one of us. Hay was most co- operative and even gladly agreed to have his tattoo mark photographed (Taylor, 1968). The pits were not sticky to a probe and in no way resembed carious cavities. A definite white chalky area, slightly oval and about 3 millimetres in diameter extended up from the tip of the upper right canine. We considered that this was due to hypocalcitication with or without hypoplasia. No similar areas were seen in other teeth. The tips of the left canines could be ground together (Figure 16) and had been slightly flattened, whereas the right canines could not be brought into contact with each other (Figure 17)-but with a cross- bite it was just possible for the upper right canine to contact obliquely the lower right lateral (Figure 18) causing a small notch in the upper tooth. We had now seen a cause for the existence of the pits and, since the canines could not grind against each other on tlle right side, the reason for their survival.

I t was considered prudent to have the remaining technical work carried out by independent experts. From Mr. W. Brogan, of R. B. Wilson's Laboratories Limited, Glasgow, we obtained copperplated models of the 4 canines, stone plaster models, and the upper rubber impression which had lifted cleanly off the model-showing clearly the pit in the tip of the upper right canine. Silver- plated full upper and lower models were kindly prepared by Mr. Dennison, of the Eastman Dental Hospital, London, through the good offices of Dr. M. N. Naylor and Professor A. Mack.

I t was believed that the ring marks A and E on the breast (Figure 6) were made by the right canines biting against each other with breast tissue in between. Skin reactions of the nail bed of fingers had been studied previously by one of us, with guidance from Sir Thomas Lewis (1941); this seemed a fair and readily accessible site on which to investigate marks produced by the 4 copper models of the canines (Figures 19, 20, 21)-instead of an opposing canine there would be the underlying phalangeal bone to give resistance. Colour photographs recorded that the right canines caused red rings with pale centres, while pressure with the tips of the left canines caused only red marks.

The Suspect's Dental History Hay was now in an approved school of stricter security. We requested that

no routine dental treatment should be carried out which might alter the shape of Hay's teeth, and we asked to be informed if he requested any dental treatment (Euler, 1929). We then tried to check Hay's dental and medical history. A photostat copy was obtained of the record card when Mr. Ian Brown, of Lanark, inspected Hay's teeth on 19/1/67; four cavities were noted including one on the mesial surface of tlle upper left lateral, but there was no record of

172

Figure 7. Upper (left) and lower (right) models of suspect No. 6. Details in Tables 1 and 2.


Figure 9. Upper (left) and lower (right) models of suspect No. 14. Details in Tables 1 and 2. 173



SH3RIFF COURT OF LANARKSHIRE AT LANARK

The PETITION of THOMAS JACK COCHRANE, Procurator F i s c a l

of Court,

WMBLY SHEWETH:

That LINDA KAREN PEACOCK, aged 15 years , daughter of and

res iding with George NcKendrick

Peacock, Swaire Cottage, Carwood

Road, Biggar,

was found dead i n the cemetery of St . Mary's Church, Carwood Road,

Biggar, on 7 th August, 1967, and tha t t h e circumstances indicated

t h a t she had been murdered; t h a t t h e locus i s near the entrance t o

Loaningdale Approved School ;

That the re w a s found on t h e body an in ju ry which appeared t o

be the r e s u l t of a b i t e and t h a t the re were c e r t a i n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c

marks on the perimeter of t h i s in ju ry indicat ive of the

conformation of the t e e t h of the person who had b i t t e n her ;

That a t t h e time o r immediately the rea f te r it was thought

tha t t h e person concerned might be one of the persons then res ident

at Loaningdale Approved School, Biggar, t h a t consent was granted

by a l l person then res iden t i n sa id school f o r impressions t o be

taken of t h e i r t e e t h f o r t h e purpose of comparisons with t h e marks

on t h e body of sa id LINDA KAREN PEACOCK, t h a t f u r t h e r impressions

were taken from f o u r of sa id persons f o r t h e purpose of more

p a r t i c u l a r comparison; one of sa id f o u r persons being GORDON HAY

who was on 7 th August, 1967, r es iden t a t said Loaningdale

Approved School and who i s now res iden t a t Rossie Farm Approved

school/

Figure 12. (Part). The Sheriff's Warrant which was used to obtain confirmatory evidence of the sole suspect before an arrest was made.

School, Montrose, Angus, t h a t as a r e s u l t of s a i d comparisons it

appears poss ib l e t h a t marks on s a i d body were made by t h e t e e t h of

s a i d GORDON HAY;

That it appears t o t h e P e t i t i o n e r t h a t i t i s necessary i n t h e

i n t e r e s t s of j u s t i c e and f o r t h e fu r the rance of t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n

i n t o t h e murder of s a i d LINDA KAREN PEACOCK t h a t f u r t h e r

impressions, photographs and measurements of t h e t e e t h of s a id

GOIUION HAY be taken;

May i t t h e r e f o r e p l ease your Lordship t o g ran t Warrant t o

O f f i c e r s of Lanarkshire Constabulary t o proceed t o Ross ie Parm

Approved School, Montrose, and t o convey s a i d GOKDON HAY from s a i d

Xossie Farm Approved School, t o t h e Glasgow Dental Hosp i t a l , and to

g r a n t Warrant t o D r . Warren Harvey, M.R.C.S., L.R.C.P., P.D.S.,

Consultant at Glasgow Dental Hosp i t a l , and t o M r . W.R.E. Lai rd ,

J3.D.Sw, H.D.D., F.D.S., Lec tu re r a t Glasgow Dental Hospi ta l . t o

t a k e such f u r t h e r den ta l impressions, photographs and measurements

of t h e t e e t h of s a i d GORDON FIAY as they may cons ider reasonably

necessary f o r t h e fu r the rance of s a i d comparisons.

ACCORDING TO JUSTICE,

P rocura to r F i s c a l

LANARK. 26th September, 1967. The She r i f f S u b s t i t u t e having

considered the foregoing P e t i t i o n g r a n t s Warrant as craved,

She r i f f Subs t i t u t e .

Figure 12. (Part). The Sheriff's Warrant which was used to obtain confirmatory evidence of the sole suspect before an arrest was made.

any treatment and it was thought that Hay declined to have any. The upper left central had been fractured when Hay was 13 by the recoil from a shot gun; he had whooping cough when 3 years old, with mumps and measles a year later. Both farms where Hay lived had piped spring drinking water, and the public analyst confirmed that these sources contained no fluorine. Between the dates given for the onset of mineralisation in upper and lower canines by Gustafson and Koch (Gustafson, 1966), Hay's illnesses could easily have disrupted both formation and calcification of the canines.

Hypoplasia. Severe hypoplasia, "Hy. +", was described by Lady Mellanby (1934) as occurring in canines between 10.9 and 39.2 per cent. Bruker (1943) gives figures for hypoplasia as 0.93 per cent. for upper canines and 0.67 per cent. for lower canines, and discusses etiology. Hodson (1944) saw no T hypoplasia in upper or lower canines. Zimmerman (1954) described non-fluoride opacities as oval non-striated and non-symmetrical; Kallis and Silva (1967) found 8.87 per cent. of children in Carnarvon, Western Australia, with idiopathic enamel opacities compared with Hurme (1948) who found 83 per cent. in New England American children.

I t was anticipated that the question of caries in canines might be mentioned. Wallis and Pare (1895) examined 30,000 extracted permanent teeth and found caries in 2.86 per cent. of upper canines and 0.78 per cent. in lower canines. Barr (1937) found 3.2 to 5.0 per cent. in upper canines and 1.8 per cent. in lower canines in the age group 13 to 20 years.

Pits-A Practical Project No references, description or incidence of pits in the tips of canines could be

obtained from the literature or erudite colleagues. And so, special arrangements were made for the examination on October l l t h , 1967, of 342 boys aged over 16 and under 18. In spite of full or partial dentures, missing and unerupted canines, it was possible to see over 1,000 canines. The sole object was to determine some idea of the frequency of hypocalcification and pits in the tips of canine teeth in this age group of boys with Hay's socio-economic background. The results are shown in Table 5.

TABLE 5

1,000 canincs in 342 boys aged 16 and 17 ycars

Feature No. Comment

Hypocalcification

Fracture, involving tip

Filling on tip

7 Considerable attrition frequently seen- surprising in view of the short time since

1 eruption (Hurmc, 1948). These areas due to wear and grinding in no way

1 rcsemble the pits in Hay's teeth.

Caries near but not involving tip 2

Pits a t tip 2

l'it with hypocalcification 1

Two pits in samc mouth 0

This was confirmation of our clinical impression that discrete pits such as those in Hay's right canines (Figure 19) were not a t all common.

Encouragement from Professor Keith Simpson On October 30th, 1967, two of us accompanied Chief Superintendent Muncie

to consult with Professor Keith Simpson and Dr. M. N. Naylor a t Guy's Hospital, London, where Dr. S. Keiser-Nielsen was giving a lecture on Forensic Odontology. Later we were privileged to discuss the case with many other colleagues who

177

Figure 13. This shows Hay's upper teeth with the fractured upper left incisor tooth a t thc top of the photograph ; the large mirror view of the inside of the mouth shows clearly

the cavity in the upper left lateral tooth.

I'igure 14. This shows the edges of Hay's upper right incisor, canine and premolar teeth ; the defect or pit in the tip of thc upper right canine can be seen clearly.

Figure 15. Shows the lower right incisors, canine and premolar teeth in the lower part of the photograph ; the edges of these teeth are seen in the mirror, with the defect or pit in the

tip of the lower right canine. 1178

Figure 16. Shows models of Hay's teeth on a Dentatus articulator ; the accuracy of the movements was checked, subsequently in the mouth. The left canine teeth can grind

together a t the tips.

Figure 17. Shows the most significant inability of Hay to grind together the tips of his right canine teeth.

Figure 18. Shows how the slight groove in the tip of Hay's upper right canine tooth was caused by grinding in a cross bite on the edge of the lower right lateral tooth.

179

happened to be in the Department of Forensic Medicine. Extracts of a letter dated October 31st, 1967, from Professor Keith Simpson are given below:-

"Autopsy rlisclosed a fresh oval front-dentition bite-mark on the dead girl's right breast, which i s well defined enough to merit a most detailed comparison of pattern with a suspect dentition, a cast of teeth, copper models or the use of a superimposition comparison technique. A s a medico-legal pathologist with some experience in this field I should certainly havecalledfor the assistance of Forensic dental experts i n such a case.

Fresh marks o f this kind can never be said to have taken place ' y u s t before" or "at the time of" or " just after" death, but only "at about the time of death". Even had the marks been examined by microscopy after autopsy the position would be the same. T h e freshly dead sk in can also be "bruised" in this way by biting, or suction, or both : t iny petechial bleeding points can be produced in the suction area before or after death.

Detailed study must , as in this case, be i n the hands of dental experts. Both the taking of impressions and the preparation of casts must , to have evidential value, avoid a n y unorthodox technique. I t has done so.

I n the taking of photographs for superimposition comparison, though a scale i s desirable for the direct measurement of details, i t i s of little significance in "jtting" for pattern. Here, when one point has been jxed , i t i s the lie, shape and exac t j t t ing (or not) of the other biting edges, points or surfaces that matters. I t i s in the geo- graphic matching of a number of other points (when only one i s j x e d ) that eviclential signijcance m a y lie.

In this respect the remarkable photographic szrperimpositions shown to me carry great evidential weight. Set N o . 14 at first sight suspicious, can be eliminated on detail. Set N o . 11 i s a n exact "fit".

A scraped cuticle, showing a rotating closing movement at one point (distorted by the mobility of the skin) can be interpreted as rotation in closing the upper and lower front dentition-with a n angled cutting tooth edge. Al l marks need not show such sliding, for i t depends upon which teeth (especially cutting edge teeth) closed first, and at what angle-and to some extent also on the "squeeze-escape" of the skin.

T h i s fitted mark shows a single primary bite closure which reproduces exactly so much fine detail of the casts of N o . II that no-real doubt could possibly exist as to their matching. T h e details give tlze position of the face vis-a-vis the breast. T h e precise reproduction of detail corresponding with ( a ) major tooth pattern, (b) distancing, shape and "set" of the teeth, (c) the sharp angled cut from a left upper lateral incisor and ( d ) "ring" detail : leave no reasonable possibility that the marks could have been made by a n y z~pper/lower dentition sets than those marked N o . I I . Such evidence must be given by a dental surgeon with experience in this field-personal and by study of the literature.

I need hardly add that the less teclznical tlze detail ofered to a jury i n Court the better, but the taking of impressions and preparation of casts, the scaled photographs for superimposition and the method of presenting the details photographically cannot be further simplified. A jury should have no diflculty in understanding this evidence-and appreciating its simple strength. I t i s a k i n to tool-marking evidence or fingerprints.

The last observation Iwould malze i s that this bite-marlz i s such a striking detailed reproduction of the "bite" of N o . 11 that no doubt could exist as to who bit the girl's breast. I t happened "close to the time of her death". B u t it does not prove that this assailant also hit or strangled the girl. T h e remote possibility that another person strangled and killed the girl in that cemetery almost immediately after suspect N o . 11 bit her must be left to reason and common sense-a matter for the jury who will hear all the evidence".

160

Figure 19. Photographs (x 2.1) of copper models of Hay's upper and lower canine teeth ; the left ones have flattened tips due to grinding together, a s shown in Figure 16. The upper and lower right canine teeth have small remarkable pits in their tips ; these are due to poor structure and/or calcification, and have survived because the tips cannot be ground together

-as shown in Figure 17.

Figure 20. Photograph (x 5.7) of a copper model of Hay's upper right canine tooth with a pit in the tip.

Figure 21. Photograph (x 5.7) of a copper model of Hay's lower right canine tooth with a pit in the tip.

THE ARREST The arrest was made on November 24th, 1967. The indictment read as

follows :- Gordon H a y , prisoner in the Prison of Barlinnie, Glasgow, you are Indicted at

the instance of T h e Right Honourable Henry Stephen Wilson, Her Majesty's Advocate, and the charge against you i s that you did, on Sunday 6th August, 1967, at St . Mary's Cemetery, Carwood Road, Biggar, Lanarkshire, assault Linda Karen Peacock, aged 15 years, daughter of and residing with George McKendrick Peacock, Swaire Cottage, Carwood, Biggar aforesaid, and did strike her on the head with a n instrument, bite her breast, tie a ligature round her wrist, tie a ligature round her neck and strangle her and you did murder her.

H . D. B. Morton, A.D.

Hay lodged a special defence of alibi claiming that at the time of the alleged crime, between 9-0 p.m. and midnight, he was in the approved school.

PREPARATION FOR THE TRIAL Because of the delicate detail seen in the photographs of the bite-mark on the

breast, and in Hay's teeth, models and photographs, it was considered most important not to use varnish, lipstick or printers' ink on the models (Sorup, 1924; Humble, 1933; Morgan, 1943; Strom, 1963; Furness, 1968). Because of the anticipated difficulty of presenting stereoscopic photographs to a judge, counsel, solicitors and fifteen members of the jury, the method of Strom (1963) was not used. I t was an easy decision not to use the heroic method of Vasiliu et a1 (1958) who confirmed their suspicion of a suspect by getting him to bite the hand of one of the investigators. Comparison of models and bite-mark was made by superimposition of transparencies onto prints, a method used on many previous instances (Sorup, 1924; Humble, 1933; Simpson, 1953; Berg and Schaidt, 1954; Korkhaus, 1955; Gustafson, 1966; Furuhata and Yamamato, 1967); we considered that less potential personal error was in this way involved than in tracing the skin marks on to translucent paper (Korkhaus, 1955). Soderman and O'Connell (1936) suggested that photographs and models should be presented in court by the same procedure as used for fingerprints, and this may be excellent for some cases.

The outstanding marks in Figure 6 are (1) the dark area C with white thread- like streaks, and (2) two rather dark rings A and E with light centres. At the right-hand corner of the abrasion C (Figure 6) is a dark circular mark close beside and a t the corner of an L-shaped white thread-like area. Running left from that circular mark, and parallel to the perimeter of the oval bruised area, is a white slightly curved thread-like line. Just outside to the left of this line is another circular area, less well defined, but still clearly visible. Moving left again is a wider white thread-like Y-shaped line, with another dark circular area in the arms of the Y. Left of the tail of the Y is a pear-shaped white linear mark parallel again with the perimeter of the whole oval bruise mark. Beyond this, and at right angles to it, a t the extreme left of the abrasion C is a thin thread-like line, enclosing half way a dark bruised area.

The upper left central incisor (Figure 22) is fractured on the left aspect of the cutting edge, resulting in a rough surface with certain distinct characteristics; on it are two circular protuberances linked by a col; left of these, the upper distal sharp edge of the fractured surface lies midway in the opening to the cavity in the mesial surface of the lateral tooth; the biting edge of this lateral incisor is intact, giving the tooth a hook-like effect. This lateral is rotated so that the distal side presents a sharp edge palatally.

Superimposition of transparencies of the models of the teeth on to the photograph of the breast showed that the defective features in the teeth and the characteristics in the oval bruise mark could be closely related. Sixteen points of correspondence are shown in Figures 22 and 23.

183

From the comparative study of these marks and the superimpositions, a firm opinion was formed that Hay's defective upper left central and lateral teeth and the defective upper and lower canine teeth on the right made the marks

C

I-

I 1 I.

Figure 22. Left. An enlargement (x 3) of the abrasion area C in Figure 6. Flgure 23. Right. An enlargement (x 3) of the stone plaster model of Hay's fractured upper left incisor tooth and the upper left lateral with the filling missing mesially. Sixteen points

of correspondence are shown-there are more. Details are as follows :-

Distal and palatal side of 12 Most prominent point of rotated 12 - palatally, with skin tear running to distal corner of incisal edge Skin tear running in groove from the cavity to the lowest and central point of the incisal edge of 12 Mesial cavity i n 12 Contact area between 112 running onto labial edge of fractured 11

- Distal protuberance onfractured surface of I I Mesial protuberance on fractured surface of - Labial surface of fracture on 11 -

6-shaped tear of skin labial to fractured surface of 11 -

Incisal edge of 11 - Palatal edge of fractured surface of 11 - Skin tear running from distal palatal corner of 11 opposite the cavity in 12 - - Gingival margin marking, with linear skin tear parallel-but incisal-to this.

A, C and E (Figure 6) on Linda Peacock's right breast. In the preparation of these photographs we used the stone plaster models

obtained after the warrant as these showed clearly the fine detail seen in the mouth by 3 of us; the original plaster models still showed the pits in the right canines, but in handling some of the detail had worn away. However, a t this stage the Crown authorities alerted us that some trouble was anticipated in connection with the third series of dental impressions taken under authority of the Sheriff's warrant. Accordingly, a second series of books of photographs was prepared using the original plaster models which had been obtained after the form shown in Figure 4 had been signed, lest those following on the warrant should be disallowed.

184

Model Number 8. By this time, as is normal, the defence solicitor and counsel and their expert dental witnesses had been allowed to see all the material evidence which the prosecution proposed to produce in court; also at this stage we were routinely questioned by the Procurator Fiscal, and the solicitor for the defence. A request was then received for another similar book of photographs and transparencies-but made up using the models of h'uniber 8 instead of Number 11. This was done, but whereas the transparencies of Hay's teeth "fitted" over the bite-marks and were therefore attached to the underlying print at one side only-allowing checking of detail and correspondence in both, we could find no such matching with the transparencies of Number 8; indeed, we had excluded these models in the first week of our studies, and so these transparencies of Number 8 were left, clearly marked, unattached in a transparent envelope beside the print of the bite-marks.

I t was then necessary to give in detail our reasons for rejecting Number 8 as a possible suspect. The plaster models of this person show (Figure 24) considerable

321 1 123 grinding or attrition of the tips of 3 x i 1 r 3 -a11 twelve front teeth, leaving

the biting edges of both upper and loher teeth almost level. The lower right canine shows an oval shallow concavity approximately 5 by 3 millimetres in size with the anterior lip raised; the upper right canine has the sharp edges of a grounded triangular area about 4 by 3 millimetres in size, with a small pimple in the centre, surrounded by a shallow gutter. Both upper canines have a marked cingulum or raised part on the palatal surfaces. The two upper central incisors show very considerable attrition-they have been ground down in such a way that the hard enamel walls leave sharp anterior (labial) and palatal cutting edges; the softer dentine lies in a trough between these ridges so that the biting area of each tooth is clearly quadrilateral, tapering slightly at the sides away from the centre line. The upper left lateral is flattened and slightly grooved. Gaps exist between the lower first and second incisors on both sides. If 1 I I caused the abrasion C (Figure 6) it would be reasonable to expect to see signs of the quadrilateral biting surface; if 3 1 caused E then the characteristic detail

Figure 24. Shows the upper and lower models of Number S which were includcd in several investigators' short lists (see Table 8 ) .

of the pimple in the centre of the triangular tip should clearly show. In fact the biting tips of the right canines show no small circumscribed pits as seen in Hay's teeth but instead broad shallow saucer-shaped areas, which are, of course, quite common and are characteristically caused by grinding so that the opposing surfaces fit together most accurately. The raised ridge or cingulum on the inner surfaces of the upper canines would almost certainly show in the bite-mark if Number 8 was responsible for the severe type of bite sustained by the girl. The area of the tip of the upper right canine is clearly smaller than that of the lower right canine-this is the reverse of what is seen in Hay's teeth, which agree in comparable size to the relevant marks on the breast. A bite from

185

Number 8 would be expected to show several contacting teeth because the biting edges are all so level; the gaps between the lower teeth would almost certainly show in a bite; the width of the two characteristically shaped and level upper incisors is much greater than the size of the abrasion C. If an attempt is made to orientate the models so that the lower canines might cause the ring marks A and E, the inter canine distance is too great to fit these marks; the lower left canine is ground flat with no semblance of the shallowest saucer or pit in the tip. We could not fit the transparencies of the models to the bite-marks in any of the four possible main orientations or degrees between them. We could, therefore, state categorically that the teeth of Number 8 did not make the bite-marks on Linda Peacock's right breast.

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE We became increasingly aware of the need to have at our beck and call all the

knowledge which we could collect on bite-marks, both to solve our own problems and to be prepared to answer questions which we anticipated would be asked at the trial.

In the preface of his book Keith Simpson (1953) wrote "A skilled witness cannot afford to be ignorant either when he assists in the preparation of the case, or when he faces counsel, who may have taken the trouble to become well- informed on the matter in hand". At the trial it was abundantly evident that both counsel had indeed taken care over their preparation. We were greatly helped by Dr. Soren Keiser-Nielsen, who let us have copies and reprints of many relevant articles; Mr. P. E. Brodie, Assistant Commissioner Crime, New Scotland Yard, obtained very kindly most valuable translations of German and Japanese papers.

Fearnhead (1961) believed that "evidence which involves the identification of a person by tooth-marks left as bruises in flesh, should never be admitted". Keiser-Nielsen (1967) wrote "any more comprehensive mark may well lead to direct identification as shown by a number of cases from all over the world". This view is echoed by Nakamura (1953), Schaidt (1954), Svensson and Wendell (1955), Sebata (1963), Strom (1963), Furuhata and Nakamura (1967) and many others. Korkhaus (1955) stated that no two bites are alike, except perhaps in identical twins; Renner had written on the individuality of bitemarks in 1940- see Berg and Schaidt (1954) who considered that there was 'no complete identity of different bites'.

Subjects Biting and Bitten : Fights among men are the cause of some bites -for example, the policeman on duty (Keyes, 1921), robbery of a dentist (Susuki and Kawasaki, 1966) and the fights in the Tirol when ears were bitten off, immortalised by Gustafson (1966). Detective Inspector B. Wright (1968) had a remarkable case where a man was bitten by another man and his dog. Furness (1968) has shown how severe bites can be in murder by a homosexual; he also has had a case where the victim's own hand was pushed into her mouth by the murderer who stabbed her-the marks on her hand being made by her own teeth. Usuallv bites are the result of sexual assaults by men on women (Soder- man and O'Connell, 1936; Simpson, 1951; Strom, 1963; Van Hecke, 1966; Susuki and Kawasaki, 1966). Occasionally the victim manages to bite the assailant, and 3 cases in which this was responsible for a conviction aredescribed by Rhodes (1937), Smith (1940) and Butler (1966).

The Shape of the Arch may be a complete circle or a slight ellipse in a horizontal or even a vertical plane; there may be a gap between the two arches (Nakamura, 1953) or there may be many gaps as discussed earlier in the section "29 persons".

The Shape of the Marks in the flesh does not always correspond with the edges of the teeth (Korkhaus, 1955). Keiser-Nielsen (1967) wrote "bite-marks can never be taken to reproduce accurately the dental conditions of the originator"--i.e., a mirror image cannot be expected, but this stresses the importance

186

of characteristic details when they are present; this is emphasised also by Simpson (1951) and Strom (1963).

Characteristic Details may not all appear in the bite-mark (Gustafson, 1966). Strom (1963) considers details more important than numbers of teeth in a bite-mark, and empliasised the need to search for characteristic details of the suspect's teeth which may be reproduced in the bite; he described in great detail the corresponding characteristics in the teeth of the suspect and bite- marks on a girl murdered in Oslo in 1957. Korkhaus (1955) described "the unique features of a great line of peculiarities" in his case. Euler (1929) described in detail two small hypoplastic pits on the biting edge of a lower left incisor whicli made most accurate marks in an apple made of soap bitten by a burglar who thought it was real. Keiser-Nielsen (1947) showed a clear example of the imprint of gingival margins in a bite-mark. Smith and Fiddes (1955) considered that characteristics appeared especially in bites on the face and arms.

Difficulty in the Measurement of Marks : Shrinkage of bite-marks is discussed by Strom (1963), Korkhaus (1955), Keyes (1925), Van Hecke (1966), Polson (1965) and Gustafson (1966). The importance of making measurements directly on the body is emphasised by Gustafson (1966), and as soon as possible by Furuhata and Yamamato (1967). Strom (1963) and Polson (1965) both mention the change in shape and size of marks to be expected from action of the elastic fibres in skin. Loss of water and putrefaction may alter the picture, Gustafson (1966). Clearly the sucking seen in sexual bites, Nakamura (1953) and Korkhaus (1955) may change the appearance of bite-marks considerably. Attention is drawn to the problem of measuring curved surfaces by Strom (1963), Gustafson (1966), Furuhata and Yamamato (1967). Korkhaus (1955) discussed the problem of his case where the bite arch on the photograph was narrower than the arch of the suspect.

The Type and Position of the Bite : The sadistic or sexual bite is usually slowly made and, therefore, well defined, Gustafson (1966) and Furness (1968); the fighter and the lunatic bite quickly. An attacker may press his own hands over his victim's mouth, Strom (1935), or he may stifle his victim's cries with her own hands, Furness (1965). Suzuki and Kawasaki (1966) noted that bites occurred most frequently on the upper limb (finger, hand and arm), head and face. Furuliata and Yamamato (1967) emphasised how important it is to examine the whole body in cases of bite-marks. A case of a bite on the breast, head wound and sex assault was described by Strom (1963). Cases of a bite on the breast, strangulation and sex assault were described by Simpson (1951), Vasiliu et a1 (1958) and Van Hecke (1966). Mrs. Margery Gardner, Heath's first victim, was found with her hands tied, sadistically beaten, and sexually assaulted with both nipples bitten off (Simpson, 1947).

Ears-Gustafson (1966), skin-Butler (1966). nipples-Simpson (1947, 1951), tip of the right index finger and nail-Smith (1940) have all been bitten off.

Age may sometimes be revealed when a bite is made by unworn incisors showing enamel notches (in Angle's class 2 malocclusion, such teeth out of occlusion may retain these notches for a very long time). Abrasion may be so severe as to wear down the biting edges below the contact points, so that gaps appear between the teeth-Gustafson (1966).

The Effect of Time in bites on the shoulder was noted by Sabata (1963); depression of the tooth-mark lasted 3 to 5 minutes prior to swelling, which is complete in the area in 10 to 15 minutes; the marks of individual teeth were no longer discernible 20 minutes after the bite; maximum swelling was reached in 20 to 60 minutes and lasted 5 hours, disappearing in 24 hours, leaving haemorrha- gic areas in the tooth-marks and sucked zone. A new bruise began 24 hours after the bite. In thin subjects the cutting edge remained for 72 hours. Furness (unpublished) noted clear marks on a body exhumed about one year after the

187

bite and burial, and also complete fading of a bite-mark on the breast in a case of rape, within 12 hours of the offence.

Saar (1952) noted that face bites fade more quickly than arm bites; face and arm bites in women are said to fade more slowly than in men; in women arm bites last 9 to 12 hours, and in men 3 to 6 hours; in women face bites last 6 to 48 hours, and in men 22 to 54 hours.

The Teeth Involved: Nakamura (1953) produced bites containing 10, 14, 14, 19, 13, 15, 12 and 15 marks on the bellies of two women. In 1955 Korkhaus described a case where the main marks were due to opposing right canines. Smith and Fiddes (1955) wrote that bite-marks usually consisted of 3 or 4 upper teeth and one or more lower opposing teeth. In Strom's case (1963) there were marks of 3 upper and 3 lower anterior teeth. Keiser-Nielsen (1968) considers that generally only a very limited number of teeth are involved in a bite-mark. The lower anterior teeth are most commonly involved (J.F.).

Experimental Bites and Bite Pressures : Nakamura (1953) made experimental bites on the bellies of two multiparous women, one aged 25 and fat, the other aged 20 and medium build. No dynamic recording machine was used because of the need for suction in addition to the bite; the author produced generous bites with his wide hemispherical arches. Sabata (1963) "with the acquiescence of" 5 women, aged 21 to 36, bit 3 areas of their shoulders; he found that the size of the bite arch could vary plus or minus 5 per cent. in width (in fat subjects the width tended to be increased and the length decreased); the lengthofthebite arch variedfrom plus 10 to minus 30 per cent. (in thin subjects the width might be decreased and the length increased); sucking could increase the width but leave the length unaltered. The colour of the marks varied with skin colour and pigment, also the amount of capillary blood in the bruise. In 1954 Berg and Schaidt analysed 5,000 bites in plasticine by 100 individuals- no comparison was described of bites in living flesh. In 1952 Saar made a biting device for work on "human guinea pigs" so that pressures could be varied from 2 to 8 kilogrammes (this latter figure was said to be the equivalent of the bite of a man aged 30) on the incisors, using "20 live men and 20 live women" aged 15 to 20; bites were made on the upper arm, cheek and forehead, and chin. Miura and Sumita (1954) determined the pressures exerted by the anterior teeth, as shown in Table 6.

TABLE 6

RIiura and Sumita, 1954 L e f t I<igllt

- Incisor Canine Incisor Canine

Bite Minimum 6.00 13 .00 6.00 12.00 pressure i n Mean 11.41 18.75 11.03 2 1.95 Kilogrammes Maximum 21.80 20.40 23.50 33.00

These figures relate to 82 males, aged 22 to 26, with intact teeth and normal occlusion. Bites through clothing may be surprisingly clear-Gustafson (1966) and Camps (1968) when seen by direct or ultra violet, or infra red light- Keiser-Nielsen (1968).

The Number of Bites on the Victim : Simpson (1947, 1951) and Van Hecke (1966) described cases where there were at least two areas of the body with bite- marks; the case reported by Korkhaus (1955) had 3 bite-marks; the homosexual man in the case described by Furness (1968) was bitten at least 6 times; in the case of Vasiliu et a1 (1958) a woman of 26, mother of 4 children, was raped by a t least 3 men-one of whom bit her at least 9 times. In Sorup's case (1924) there were "a great number of bites", many of them indistinct except those on the chin. I t is clearly important to examine the whole body in bite cases.

188

The Number of Suspects : In the case of Vasiliu et a1 (1958) a police dog led the search to a work community of 60 men; these were short-listed to 20, and with models of their teeth it was possible to eliminate 16 of these and finally to prove the identity of the culprit. Furness excluded 2 out of 3 suspects. In Sorup's case a girl was found strangled and bitten (1924) in the Kaiser Wilhelm Platz, in Dresden; suspicion fell on a man who was found dirty, dishevelled, with scratches on his face, female hairs and blood on his uniform; models of his teeth showed that he could not be the murderer, and the real culprit was found a few days later.

DISCUSSION The Present Case. Linda Peacock was only 15 and Gordon Hay 17 years

old when this murder with a sexual motive and bite-mark took place. These are younger than any persons mentioned in the relevant literature available to us before the trial.

Only an idea of the shape of the assailant's dental arches could be obtained from the photographs of the bite area where only 3 marks were very definite. The shape of the ring marks A and E (Figure 6) are quite unlike any described in the literature we have seen, but the scarcity is compensated by the wealth of characteristic detail available on close study.

Much has been written on the shrinkage of the bite-mark compared with the plaster models of the assailant. However, in this case it was found necessary slightly to enlarge the transparencies of the plaster models to demonstrate perfect superimposition of incontrovertible characteristic details (the difference was x 2.6 compared with x 2.5). Sabata (1963) has shown that there may be as much as 5.0 per cent. increase in width of the bite-mark ; Camps (1968) stresses the importance of measurement and photography before the body is moved. We realised that we had to work with the best negatives and prints obtained in the mortuary about 19 hours after the murder, with the girl lying horizontal. Again, Camps (1968) emphasises the importance of measurement and photography of bite-marks in the position in which the bite took place. We had several reasons for suspecting that the girl was bitten sitting up, with Hay coming from behind over her right shoulder. To the orthodox mind this may indeed seem unusual, but it is less surprising in the light of modern sexual athleticism, and in the light of post-mortem findings.

In the central area of the bite-mark (Figure 6) there is ample evidence of considerable sucking; although no mention of it can be found in the literature, it is felt that tongue thrusting may also be an important factor; this may have driven breast tissue into the cavity of the upper left lateral, aggravating the abrasion when it was torn out; in this cavity in the plaster model alginate impression material was found where it had been torn from the original impression material when it was lifted off after the plaster had set hard.

From the appearance and definition of the marks on the breast, we thought that the girl could not have lived for many minutes after she had been bitten (Sabata, 1963). The ring marks were due, we believed, to the opposing canines as in the case of Korkhaus (1955); again the main marks were caused by 3 upper and 1 lower opposing tooth (Smith and Fiddes, 1955).

We rightly expected that the conclusions of Berg and Schaidt (1954), re- quiring 4 to 5 contiguous marks for a positive identification, would be invoked by the defence; however, we firmly believed that bites in plasticine have little physiological connection with the appearance of bites in flesh at or about the time of death.

There may have been at least 3 bites on the victim's body, possibly 4, but only the one on the right breast was clear.

The number of persons-28-to be excluded clarified our ideas as we worked through them, and a background knowledge of the literature proved invaluable.

189

I t may save time in future for others to know that in the following books we found no relevant contributions to bite-marks: Taylor (1844), Cooper (1861), Mann (1893), Glaister (1925), Smith and Glaister (1931), Hertzog (1931), Smith and Cook (1934), Kerr (1946), Suyder (1947), Gross et a1 (1949), Gordon Turner and Price (1953), Camps and Purchase (1956), Smith et al., Taylor (1957), Glaister and Rentoul (1962), Krogman (1962), Lundquist (1962).

Prelude to the trial: During a very hectic short visit Dr. Soren Keiser- Nielsen discussed many points with us; his approach to the problem emphasised the importance of considering all 4 possible main compass bearings (N. S. E. W.) in determining the correct orientation of the bite-mark.

At this stage the Crown authorities through Mr. T. J. Cochrane, Procurator Fiscal, of Lanark, asked Mr. John Furness for his analysis of the case. His short list consisted of Numbers 8, 11, 14, 19, 26 and 28-which compared most interestingly with the original short list made in August, 1967, consisting of 6, 11, 14, 19, 26 (with 28 excluded on ~econd thought). Mr. John Furness selected Number 11-Hay-as the so!e w5pect.

The philosophy of the possible estent of interaction of belief, reports, identification and witness are stimul.tingly discussed by Souder (1961), Cole (1962), Huber (1962) and Enklaar (1964). Tlle practicability of learning from error is superbly shown by Lord Cohen (1967). Salutory guidance on Court procedure and the art and craft of the professional witness is given with wisdom and wit by Simpson (1967) from a wealth of practical and personal experience.

THE TRIAL The trial took place on February 26th, 1968, and subsequent days at the

High Court of Justiciary in Edinburgh before the Lord Justice Clerk (Grant) and a jury of 9 men and 6 women. The prosecuting counsel were Mr. Ewan Stewart, Q.C., Solicitor-General, with Mr. H. D. B. Morton, Advocate-Depute, and Mr. J. F. Wheatley, Advocate, for the Crown. The defending counsel were Mr. Mr. I. Stewart, Q.C., with Mr. Jas. Law, Advocate instructed by Mr. Hamish D. McGaan, Solicitor, Lanark, for the accused.

The extended short-hand notes of evidence occupy nearly 1,100 pages of foolscap, excluding the summing-up of counsel. Of these, about 400 pages are talten up with medical and dental evidence. Clearly only abstracts of most of this can be given, but Professor Keith Simpson's evidence and Lord Grant's charge to the jury are of such importance that they merit more space.

Throughout the trial is was not always easy for counsel to lay bare the truth. Twice Lord Grant warned a boy about perjury after he admitted he was "doing his best to cover up for Hay". Another witness admitted he had lied to the police and to Hay's solicitor. A boy agreed that it sounded as if Hay had invited him t c ~ lie, and when asked whv he lied, he said "I just suppose I was scared". Boys zdmitted that they had been "getting their times right" in the witness room.

Detective Superintendent James Weir spoke of Hay's resentment when questioned at Rossie Farm School about his movements between 9-30 and 10-30 on Sunday night, August 6th; finally, Hay said "I cannot change my story now Sir". At this time, Hay was one of 13 simultaneous lines of enquiry.

Medical and Dental Evidence of the Crown Dr. J. A. Imrie, a Police Surgeon and Lecturer on Forensic Medicine, of

considerable experience, saw Linda's body at the cemetery, and the oval bruising of her right breast-which he thought was a bite. Questioned, he replied "we have seen many bites especially in connection with sexual assaults". He had been doing post-mortems for 30 years. When asked if he had it in mind to identify the assailant from the mark he saw on the breast, he replied "we did

190

not have it in mind at tlle time of the post-mortem". He was sliown a length of string 6 feet 7 inches with a knot at one end and a loop at the other-this could have caused the strangulation. On cross examination about the bruise on the breast, he said "This was sufficiently definite for us to be able to say we thought it was a bite". Asked had he considered it possible to identify the person who made the bite on tlle breast, what he would have done, he replied "I should have referred i t to a dentist, I think". Asked if it was really a dental matter, lie replied "One refers it to an expert dentist".

Dr. W. P. Weir, a consultant pathologist, said that he believed that the bruise on the right breast was due to a bite.

Detective Inspector 0 . Butler was examined and agreed that he was at present in the Identification Bureau of Glasgow Police and had had 15 years experience in examining marks made by tools, weapons and firearms; this was the first time he had examined tooth marks in detail. He was an Associate of the Institute of Incorporated Photographers and of the Royal Photographic Society; he had prepared books of photographs to show the comparison between the marks on the breast and the teeth of Hay. He demonstrated to the Judge and jury how the transparencies of the models of Hay's teeth fitted over the print of the breast marks, showing how the pits in Hay's right canines caused the marks A and E (Figure 6), and how the fractured upper left incisor and cavity in the upper left lateral tooth caused the abrasion C. He had seen the marks on Linda's body. Hay's teeth and models had certain characteristics necessary to cause the marks A, C and E-characteristics which when taken together were most significant; none of the other 28 models had this combination of equipment capable of . - causing the injuries.

Detective Sergeant John Paton, aged 43, stated that when he saw the m ~ r k s on the breast in the cemetery, he formed the opinion that it was a bite-mark.

Professor Keith Simpson's Evidence Professor Keith Simpson was examined and agreed that he was Head of the

Department of Forensic Medicine at Guy's Hospital, London; he was a Home Office specialist and a consultant to Scotland Yard, having lectured on forensic odontology in England, America, Canada, Sweden, Denmark, Greece and South Africa. Asked by the Solicitor General if there was any doubt as to what the mark was, Professor Simpson replied "I would regard it as being unquestionably a bite-mark. I t has the characteristics which I, as a pathologist, would think were of a human bite-mark. I would say that the orientation of the person who made that bite was almost beyond any question from the above, that is to say above the right shoulder. Then there is another mark which is of a different kind and gives in my view-and I have considerable experience of surface markings on the skin-gives evidence of a grazing or scraping down, the cuticle has been drawn downwards (i.e., on the photograph from the 11 to the 14 mark on the scale). These marks I would regard as marks of teeth. The area in the centre, the darkened area with tiny dots of what I am quite clear from the photograph are minute haemorrhages, the area which I would regard as giving clear evidence of the bite closing and restraining the circulation and drainage of blood, causing it to become engorged; and almost certainly also there is some sucking drawing blood into it-that would account for the tiny haemorrhages that have developed here and there in it".

Q. "You think there was some degree of suction as well as biting?" A. "I do. A firm hold had been obtained because the teeth made very distinct impressions and that hold has been maintained, or if it were not, that central area would not have developed this flushing and these tiny haemorrhages".

Q. "You know something of the science of comparison between various dentitions and bite-marks?" A. "I have seen this done frequently. I would say that in more than 30 years practice-during the course of which I have seen many bite-marks, both of my own cases and of others shown to me in my

191

travels-that I have not seen a bite-mark with better defined details than this. Orientation and then detail would be the two points I would look for, not so much the size of the whole shape, but the orientation of the marks on it, and the detail a t points where the marks were left. I would not undertake this myself, it is a matter for an expert in this field with training in dentistry and dental technique".

Q. "Thus far, are you as a pathologist satisfied that the methods and tech- niques carried out have been recognised and correct ones?" A. "I have seen nothing unorthodox or unusual about them; they follow the usual pattern".

Q. "And as far as you can speak as a pathologist having seen these comparisons, do they satisfy you?" A. "My Lord, I have looked at these with the greatest care, as I commonly have to do with instruments of any kind in relation to marks on the skin, and I see in this couple of transparencies a number of points of comparison, two of which are in my experience quite remarkable or quite unique, new to me in my work. I say that those two marks in their position and in their character, and the other mark which shows the scraping on the surface of the cuticle-for which I should require some special explanation-are 3 quite exceptional, exceptionally detailed marks; the presence of those 3 in those positions and with those details would carry me a long way towards feeling that this was an exact comparison; I could be satisfied that this set of teeth was the set that caused these marks".

Q. "Would an area above or below the oval mark in any way vitiate your conclusion?" A. "I think it might have a variety of explanations; it might be the position in which a first hold had been obtained and which had changed owing to a change in the shape of the skin. I t might be something quite ex- traneous".

In his cross-examination, Mr. W. I. Stewart asked: "Once you get the sucking action I think you would agree you tend to get distortion of the skin which makes your judgement more difficult?" A. "Only if the teeth lose their hold, but if the teeth maintain their hold it would increase the intensity of the marking; but if they lose their hold I would expect such movement of the skin on the teeth". Q. "You think there is definitely a scraping action which has taken place pulling up some of the skin?" A. "Unquestionably. In more than 30 years, and I have seen many bite-marks, I have never seen such rings before so it cannot be common. I t must be, I would have thought, rare or comparatively rare". Q. "Can you say whether it was before, or at the time, or just after death these bruises on the breast took place?. A. "I can only say that because so little bruising has developed and because the cuticle has not yet dried at all, it would appear that these must have been fresh bites".

Q. "Would it have been an added advantage to the dental experts if they could in fact have seen the body?" A. "I am not quite sure about this. I have seen in many cases both the body and photographs, and I have seen photographs which more clearly displayed the marks on the skin than the body; this is a little difficult to understand but the shadows that lie in the skin are sometimes more clearly seen in the photographs in black and white, than they are in a pink and rose colour in the skin". Q. "Would colour photographs be of any assistance to a dentist, by that I mean the colour of the bruising?" A. "I have tried this when the bruising is quite fresh, it doesn't help at all. If the bruising is quite fresh, coloured photographs don't help at all".

Q. "Can you say whether the bruising here is quite fresh or not?" "I have given 2 reasons for supposing it to be; one is that it is so slight, and I have seen many cases with grips of what must have been something like this intensity when the bruising has quite quickly developed and goes so quickly as to wreck any chance of comparison; and the other is that the skin surface is quite moist- looking-and that dries very quickly. I would say that the tiny haemorrhages in the sucking pad also fade quickly".

192

"Do you agree with the view expressed in that book (Gustafson, 1966) that a t least 4 or 5 teeth, and they say they are adjacent teeth, should correspond exactly before a positive identification can be made?"

The Solicitor General : "I think my friend should give me the reference because there are different views canvassed and discussed in the chapter". "It is page 162".

A. "I think it is a sound view but I think probably a better attitude is a general one, that is to say that the more points of comparison that can be pointed to the more certain the truth, and the fewer the less certain. I would not fix any given number of 3, 4, 5 or 6 but I would say the more you can point to, the more certain you can be of real matching".

Q. "Would you agree that the leading experts in forensic odontology seem to live outside Britain?" A. "I think they have made strides in this field which have preceded those which have been made here and, therefore, they have become leaders; they have more experience because of their geography; they have a great deal of sea; these are Scandinavians mostly and they have a great deal of study in bodies that require identification from the sea. I think that this is not the only, but one of the most likely reasons for their being the leaders in this field they undoubtedly are".

Q. "One of the great uses of forensic odontology is in fact to identify other- wise unidentifiable bodies from air crashes and the like?" A. "That is its most common use".

Re-examined by the Solicitor General : "I don't want you to be unduly modest about yourself but if you look a t the references a t the back of that volume, do you feature pretty prominently in the publications from which the author Gustafson has drawn, looking a t pages 249 and 250?" A. "I am flattered by the attention he gave to me". Q. "I think that there are no fewer than 10 of your works referred to?" A. "Yes".

Q. "And without having gone through and counted all the others, does that compare favourably with any other individual, continental or Scandinavian authority?" A. "I think it does; my pen may have been incontinent but I certainly-I cannot-call myself an expert in forensic odontology, but I have had more than average experience of it, I think".

Q. "And that experience has been apparently considered sufficiently significant by the writer of the leading book to include all these references?" A. "Yes, that is so".

Q. "You were asked about the number of points of comparison required for fingerprints and you agreed that in this country i t was 16 to IS?" A. "It is an entirely different field-it provides for study an infinitely greater amount of material and i t is never difficult if there is a print of quite tiny dimensions to find 16 or 18 points, whereas in dental markings one is lucky if one has half a dozen points of comparison".

Q. "My learned friend seems to be seeking to take the number of points of comparison as the touch-stone of reliability, but do you think that one can go only in forensic odontology on the number of points of comparison?" A. "No, the two fields of study are not really comparable; they are quite different fields of comparison between patterns. The point I would like to make about forensic odontology is that fewer points of contact are available to start with and that generally speaking they contain fewer individual markings than any other known weapon, and when they do-as in this picture I have pointed out-they are of much greater value. So that if one has as few as 3 , 4 , 5 or 6 points of real value, one has a great deal".

By the Court: "They depend to some extent on how distinct the marks are?" A. "Yes, and how unusual".

The Solicitor General : "And so, while you agree that the more points of comparison the more certain the proof, you would also take the view that the

greater tlie peculiarity of one particular point tlle better?" A. "This would be of tlle greatest possible significance".

Q. "And turning to tlie case before us in relation to these two circular marks that you referred to, I think you said tllat in more than 30 years experience you had never seen such rings?" A. "Tllat is so, I have never seen marks like this and I would require some special explanation for them".

Q. "Would you, therefore, consider that these marks are of particular significance?" A. "Yes, if that explanation were forthcoming I would regard it as quite remarkable evidence, positive evidence".

Q. "As far as the superimpositions are concerned do you see something on those teeth that satisfied you as to the cause of these two very peculiar marks?" A. "My attention has been drawn to them and I did see and have in passing referred to points of exact comparison; I did see them, they are undoubtedly there".

Dr. Warren Harvey's Evidence Tlie whole of the fifth day of the trial was occupied witli the examination of

Dr. Warren Harvey. At the request of the jury, and with the permission of Lord Grant and the two counsel, Dr. Harvey demonstrated that copper models of Hay's right canines could cause marks on the nail bed of a finger similar to tlie ring marks on Linda's right breast. He confirmed that the plaster models only liad numbers on them and tllat lie did not know the identity of any person until all but tlie sole suspect liad been excluded. The discrete pits in tlie right canines, the fractured upper left central and the liook-like cavity in the upper left lateral tooth were very remarkable characteristics take11 together in one mouth.

No reference to ring marlts liad been found in the literature. The pits were not due to caries. l h e difference between l~ypocalcifcation and hypoplasia could only really be determined by extraction and sectioning the teeth. In discussing in cross-examination the enlargement of the transparencies in relation to the measurement of curved surfaces, he said "I would liate to be taken too far out into deep water because I am not an expert". Q. "Perhaps you will paddle with me so far?" asked Mr. W. I. Stewart. A. "Not too far, please", replied Dr. Harvey.

Q. "You came to the view that tlie orientation of the bite meant that the attacker came down from behind over tlie girl's right shoulder-did this surprise you?" A. "I had had so many surprises by then that I was not quite so shocked as I might have been".

After examinkg 29 of the 50 sets of models produced by the defence "in appalling conditions of light and haste", Dr. Harvey was unable to find a single set of models with pits in opposite unground canines or any other pair of teeth, though many liad various shaped flat or saucer-like depressions caused by grinding. - -

The significance of tlie pits on Hay's teeth was quite dramatic and extraordinary-something quite unusual. In view of the unusual nature of the marks, it was considered essential that tllese findings be discussed witli a pathologist having tlie widest possible knolvledge of tlie interpretation of teetli marks on skin.

Ilr. Harvey told Mr. \V. I. Stewart that probably 80 per cent. of the people in the Court, and even defence counsel himself, probably had flat or hollow tips on their canines-but these "defects" were completely different from tlie strange pits in Hay's teeth.

Re-examining, the Solicitor General asked: "You l ~ a v e found nothing in 402 sets of models or teeth examined by you that could begin to produce a picture like this-the kind of teeth which could have made the marks on the girl's breast?" A. "No". So ended, with the Judge's thanks, almost 5 hours in the witness box.

194

Evidence of Mr. John Furness Mr. John Furness said that originally he thought that the marks on the breast

were due to 2 lower and 2 upper canine teeth which resulted in a short list of Numbers 8, 11, 14, 19, 26 and 28. However, only Number 11 had all the dental equipment necessary to cause all 3 marks; this meant that his original orientation had to be changed so that the assailant's head came over the right shoulder of the girl towards the left leg. To test the rarity of pits such as those in Hay's right canines, he examined 90 boys aged 16 to 18; he found only one pit, in a lower left canine. This was a difficult bite-mark to interpret because of the difficulty of determining the orientation. He said that worn canines tended to leave a large red flat mark on skin, often V-shaped. He was asked to examine at home in Liverpool over the week-end 32 of the 50 plaster models produced by the defence. A summary of his findings is given in Table 7.

TABLE 7 ANALYSIS OF 32 DEFENCE PLASTER MODELS (CANINES)

Findings Numbers

Teeth too flat, Saucer shaped or Triangular Faced

2, 4, 6, 9, 10. 12, 13, 14 (31). 21, 22, 26, 27, 36 (Lowerg, 40, 42. 44, 46 (Uppers). 47 (3 - 1). 50 (Uppers).

* One minute pit 7.

Incomplete circle 11, 14 (13). -

Normal teeth 16, 17, 29, 30, 33, 35, 43, 46 (Lowers).

2 pits, not a t tips of opposing canines, in areas ground flat 20.

Malformed teeth 3 l (51). Poor models 31, 39.

* Doubtful pit 36.

*-It would be necessary to examine patient and models together-a request made in Court and most graciously agreed by Lord Grant and the defence counsel, should the need arise.

Not one of approximately 120 canines showed an unworn surface with a small sharp edged pit on the tip which could have caused on skin even one ringed mark with a pale centre.

Dental Evidence for the Defence: Professor George Beagrie Professor George Beagrie, Head of the Department of Restorative Dentistry,

University of Edinburgh, agreed that the marks on the breast could have been made by the accused, but he was not satisfied of that beyond reasonable doubt. He found 20 defects in the canines of the 29 Crown plaster models in Numbers 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 15, 27 and 28. Six pairs of opposing defects existed in Numbers 1, 8, 11 and 15. In a random sample of 50 models from his own department he found: No defect in 18 models, 1 defect in 10 models, 2 defects not opposite in 9 models, and 10 defects in opposite canines in 13 sets of models. He could not accept that pits such as were found in Hay's teeth were rare.

He complained of lack of definition in the breast marks, but was told this was the reverse of Professor Keith Simpson's views. After he had accepted that the pits in Hay's teeth were not due to caries or wear, he agreed that for a person of Hay's age such a condition of the mouth was extremely rare. He did not think that 2 sets of teeth were ever exactly the same. He knew of no references in the literature to ringed bite-marks on skin. When asked "Don't you think we can

exclude Number 8?", he replied "If the pathological evidence is such that it can allow this, yes". Q. "You are not in a position to contradict the evidence of Dr. Harvey?" A. "I don't think I would attempt to do so". He had no complaint about the dental procedures adopted by the Crown. In asking for a book of photographs of Number 8 like that of Number 11, he had wanted to carry out actual measurements. He had made no attempt to fit any of the defence models to the marks on the breast. He had been asked to examine the evidence on February 15th and had spent 44 hours on the case. He accepted that Hay's teeth could have caused the bite, but thought that there could be others in Great Britain capable of this, and that Number 11 was not the only possible suspect beyond reasonable doubt. He was then asked "Isn't it really the case, that the question of what kind of impression the tooth would leave on the skin, is at least to a large extent something on which a pathologist would give a more authoriative opinion?" A. "Yes".

Defence Evidence : Mr. Torquil McPhee Mr. Torquil McPhee, Head of the Department of Periodontology of the

University of Edinburgh, when cross-examined by the Solicitor General, agreed it was more than likely that canine teeth could have made the ring marks shown in the photograph; later he asserted that the mark "could even have been made by a canine without a hollow in it". He accepted that the bite-mark in this case could have been caused by Number 11, but not beyond reasonable doubt- there were probably other mouths in Britain that could have made the marks on the breast. He said "I know of no scientific study which has attempted to measure what sort of bruise results from a small pointed object, hollow or not". He claimed no forensic experience. Non-carious hollows were not rare in canines. He agreed that no two sets of teeth are the same. He, too, thought that the marks on the breast were ill defined and was told that this conflicted with Professor Keith Simpson's views. He considered that it would be possible to apply transparencies of other dentitions over the marks on the breast, and agreed to try in Court to superimpose the transparency of the teeth of Number 8 over the bite-marks. He secured one end of the upper and lower transparencies with clear adhesive tape to the print of the breast but was unable to show how these could correspond. In the short time at his disposal-he started work on the case on February 22nd and spent 4 hours on it-he was unable to exclude Numbers 8 or 14 and so disagreed with Professor Beagrie. He had made no attempt to fit any of the 50 random defence models to the marks on the girl's breast.

Counsel's Speeches In summing up the prosecution's case the Solicitor General said "The im-

porant thing is that you should not think that this dental evidence is some kind of experimental method that is being used. I t may be new in Scottish Courts but it isn't experimental". He then urged the jury to accept that Hay's teeth made the marks on the girl's breast. Speaking of the rarity of Hay's dental structure, he said that there would be few, if any, people with a similar dental structure in Britain, or indeed in the world.

Mr. W. I. Stewart, Q.C., summing up for the defence, said that no witness had seen Hay commit the crime; this meant that the evidence for the Crown was circumstantial. Each link in the prosecution case must be strong enough to stand the test of credibility. In a very difficult and involved case like this, it is fundamentally important to remember that the onus of proof lies on the Crown. I t had to be proof beyond reasonable doubt. The only evidence which connected Hay with the crime, and in particular the scene of it, was related to bite-marks. He reminded the jury that only one Crown dental witness had stated that the marks on the breast were without doubt the teeth marks of Hay. The price of making sure that the innocent are not convicted

196

must be that the guilty sometimes go free. He argued that the Crown had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The accused must be given the benefit of any doubt. That is justice according to the law of Scotland. "We pride ourselves", he concluded, "that a man convicted by a jury is undoubtedly guilty".

Judge's Charge to the Jury On the ninth day of the trial the Lord Justice-Clerk directed the jury:

"Members of the Jury, we are now approaching the end of this grave, serious, and in some ways unique case. This has been a difficult, puzzling case, but I think it is right to say at this stage that both you and I, I speak for myself but I think I also speak for you, have been assisted in our difficult tasks by the way not merely in which the case has been prepared by both sides, but also by the admirable, excellent presentation which has been made, both by the Solicitor- General, and by his namesake, Mr. Stewart.

Principles of Law to be applied "At this stage the responsibility passes from them to me, and shortly it will

be passing to you because you have the ultimate, final word in this case. My responsibility at the moment is really to explain to you the law which is applic- able to this case and the legal principles which you have to observe when you retire and consider the evidence and your verdict. The law is a matter entirely for me. If I direct you wrongly then Mr. Stewart will have his remedy. I don't say in another place but before a different Court in this place, so I can be put right if I go wrong. You, however, must accept from me what I tell you about the law and use it, as I say, as the background against which you have to consider the facts. So far as the facts are concerned the situation is entirely different. You and you alone are the sole masters of the facts. I t is for you to decide what evidence you accept, what evidence you reject; it is for you, and this may be even more important, to decide what inferences you draw from that evidence. In your task you will no doubt keep in mind what Mr. Stewart told you yesterday, and I think it is commonplace in criminal cases, that frequently you find that a witness may be partly telling the truth and partly either deliberately or through poor recollection may be telling you something which is not the truth. I stress that in this case because it is perfectly clear that in the evidence we have heard there are in many respects a number of discrepancies; whether they are due to deliberate lying or to faulty recollection is a matter for you to decide. I t is also a matter for you to sort out these discrepancies and find, to the best of your ability, where the real truth lies.

"So far as the law is concerned the general principles are, I think, probably fairly well-known to you. I start with the eliminating proposition which has been put to you by both Counsel involved and that is by the law of Scotland any man in the dock starts with a presumption of innocence in his favour; he is to be held innocent until the Crown prove him guilty. The onus upon the Crown is an onus which continues throughout the case. I will say something about the alibi in a moment but basically the onus is upon the Crown to prove a man's guilt; there is no onus upon a man to prove his innocence. The onus upon the Crown is a heavy one; it is not merely to prove on a balance of proba- bilities, it is to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. That, of course, does not mean mathematical certainty or the type of proof you would need in order to prove a theorem in geometry or the like. I t must be something more than a mere academic doubt. I t means really what it says, it is the sort of doubt that would cause you, as reasonable men and women, to hesitate to take some important decision in the ordinary course of your normal lives.

197

"The next matter is the question of corroboration. By the law of Scotland, apart from minor exceptions with which we are not concerned, no man may be convicted by the evidence of a single witness. I think I must say a little more about this because the Solicitor General and Mr. Stewart had slightly different approaches to what is meant by corroboration in the circumstances here. You don't need to have two eyewitnesses to a crime, indeed you don't need even to have one eyewitness. The present case is a classic example of what we call circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence is really a combination of a number of facts which are established and from which you can draw a certain inference. Each particular little fact may be proved by a single witness, that is to say, when you are dealing with circumstantial evidence you don't have to prove every little bit of it by two witnesses. A simple example is a case of housebreaking where you may find one witness seeing an Accused in the neighbourhood of a house, another sees him running out of the house, and a third witness speaks to finding some stolen property from the house in his possession. again you might have another witness who spoke of some piece of clothing of the Accused being left in the house. Each little link in the chain, as Mr. Stewart put it, or strand in the cable, can be established by the evidence of a single witness. The essential feature of the doctrine of corroboration is this, that there must be evidence from two or more sources establishing the guilt of the Accused of the crime charged. Analogies and similies are always rather dangerous because when they are pushed to their logical conclusion one always finds some defect or flaw. As I said, the Solicitor General likened circumstantial evidence to the threads or strands of a cable; Mr. Stewart likened them to the links in a chain. There are a limited number of cases where the chain analogy is reasonably accurate. For example, if there are two matters which you must establish in order to prove guilt then the absence of any one will be fatal. For example, in the case of fingerprints you will have to establish (a) the fingerprints at the scene of the crime, (b) the similarity of the Accused's fingerprints with those prints, and (c) on scientific evidence the fact that no two persons' fingerprints have ever been found to coincide. Now, you can regard that as a chain because if any one link goes that is the end of it, but it has been pointed out that the chain analogy is rather dangerous, for one simple reason which you will appreciate, that the more links you add on to the chain the greater the danger becomes of the chain breaking through its own weight, whereas the more bits of circumstantial evidence you get the more likely it is that the Crown have proved their case. So I think the cable analogy is better because if one strand goes that does not mean the end of the cable. If other strands go you may get to the stage where you were rather doubtful if the cable can stand the strain that the Crown are putting on it. In this case it is merely a matter of assessing what particular matters have been established to your satisfaction and then in the light of this deciding whether the Crown have discharged the onus upon them of proving beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the Accused.

The Alibi Defence

"In this case we have a defence of alibi that the Accused was in the Loaning- dale Approved School at the time when the murder happened. Now, so far as an alibi is concerned the onus is not on the Crown to disprove, it is on the Accused to establish it, but he has a much lesser onus upon him and all he need do to establish the alibi is to prove it on a balance of probability. Indeed he is in a rather better situation than that because in a case where the Accused gives evidence, as the Accused has in this case, if you accept his story no corroboration is needed and you acquit. I t goes further even that that because if the Accused's evidence or the evidence in regard to the alibi whether it comes from Crown witnesses or Defence witnesses raises a reasonable doubt in your mind as to his guilt again you would acquit him.

"In considering the evidence it is, of course, for you to decide what approach you take, but nevertheless although you are concerned in the end of the day with whether the charge has been established beyond reasonable doubt it is right and proper that in considering the particular evidence given by particular individuals you take into account whether the story told is a probable one or not, that is to say in assessing a witness's evidence you would naturally look at the inherent probability or improbability of the story just told. Furthermore, in considering the evidence you will keep in mind what the Solicitor General very fairly put to you that it is not enough for the Crown merely to eliminate 28 of the 29 people whose teeth casts were taken and say ah, the 29th must have done it. Naturally a factor you take into account if you exclude all the other inmates of Loaningdale, a factor which you are entitled to look at, but it does not go anywhere near proving in itself the guilt of the Accused. Further- more, if you were to discard the alibi keep in mind that you must not automatically go to the other extreme and say because of that, the Accused is guilty. Equally, if you decide that the Accused was telling lies in the box or that he was telling lies to the police, you don't automatically again go to the other extreme and say, therefore, he was guilty. If the alibi leaks like a sieve or if the Accused has told lies either here or elsewhere, these are matters which you can take into account but in themselves they are, of course, far from conclusive".

Testing the Evidence "Before I turn to the evidence may I just say this in regard to the dental

evidence, because Mr. Stewart raised this in his speech yesterday, if you were to find that the dental evidence did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that the mouth which bit Linda Peacock was that of the Accused, you would nevertheless still consider it along with the other evidence in the case. Of course, if you found there was no other evidence implicating the Accused then if you found that the dental pathological evidence did not come up to proof beyond reasonable doubt, that would mean an acquiital, but you should, I think, consider the evidence in the case as a whole. I t is always dangerous to com- partment evidence because you can never test compartmented evidence on its own. You must look at any piece of evidence and any witness's evidence in the light of the other evidence in the case, so don't just take it in compart- ments, look a t i t as a whole.

"Before I come to the evidence may I just say one thing, and that is that there is one matter upon which I think everybody is agreed in this case, and that is that unless there be some element of mental instability, which is not pled in regard to the Accused, then whoever killed Linda Peacock was guilty of murder. I t is not one of these cases where we have to consider the definition of murder and where there is a possibility of culpable homicide. The Solicitor- General gave you the brief definition of murder yesterday which I need not repeat. The question as I see it is not whether Linda Peacock was murdered, upon that we are all agreed, the question is whether it has been established beyond reasonable doubt that the murder was committed by the Accused".

Times and Distances "So there you have it, if you accept the evidence of the Accused being in the

school between 10 and 10-30, 10 and 10-25, or if you are left with reasonable doubt as to whether he was in the school, then that is the end of the case, but it is, as I say, for you to assess the evidence and in doing it I think you have to keep in mind certain evidence in regard to time and distance which you heard in the course of the case. I t comes basically from the evidence of Constable Kinniburgh, who gave evidence, I think, that jogging from the back door to the north end of the Manse wall took, I think, one minute 15 seconds. Walking, of course, it takes a bit more, but that would mean that if the Accused left the school just before 10 he could have been at the Manse wall at the time when

199

Mr. Aitken saw the couple meeting with the man coming down southwards from the direction of the junction with the road which leads into Loaningdale. That is to say if the person who met the girl a t the Manse wall had come from the school that is the way he would naturally have taken, along the access road on to Carwood Road and southwards towards the Manse. Again in this rather tight schedule you will perhaps keep in mind the evidence as to the time it would take to go from the Manse wall to the cemetery gates which is something, I think, under three minutes. I t is something like that, if you want the exact figures we can get them, but what I mean is this that on the timing which we have given and on the timings of Mr. Aitken and Mrs. Plenderleith, it is to say the least of it possible that the couple whom Mr. Aitken saw were the couple whom Mrs. Plenderleith saw, that is on the timings alone, I am leaving out questions of dress, and at the end we have the evidence that going fairly fast from the yew tree beside which the body was found, running to the back of the Loaning- dale School, is a journey which can be accomplished in one minute 43 seconds. These, of course, are not matters which proved that the Accused was the person who committed the crime but they are merely evidence to show that if he left the school around 10 o'clock or just before it he could have met Linda Peacock by the Manse wall, gone to the cemetery, committed this crime, burned the cord off her wrist and been back in school before half past 10. I t is tight timing, as I say, but on the figures we have been given it is a schedule within which all this could have been accomplished. Even if you took all this evidence on fact in its most favourable light so far as the Crown is concerned there would not be enough to establish that the Accused committed the crime. There are various pointers but they don't point beyond reasonable doubt and indeed they are well short of pointing beyond reasonable doubt to the Accused as the perpetrator, and it is for this reason that the dental evidence, the pathological evidence in this case is of paramount importance.

Forensic Odontology-The Law must keep pace with Science

"Kow, forensic odontology, as it is called, is a relatively new science but there must, of course, always be a first time for everything. Scientific knowledge and medical knowledge advance as the years go on and it is only comparatively recently that fingerprints have come to be accepted as matters of what an eminent judge in this Court described between the Wars as being a matter of practical infallibility, and it was only in 1945 that palm prints received what I might call their first formal judicial recognition in this Court. Now, of course, fingerprints and palm prints are rather different from the dental comparison which we have in this case. The reason is simply this that with a fingerprint you are comparing one print, the one on the bottle or the knife or whatever it may be, the weapon, and another fingerprint which the Accused has made with his finger, you are comparing a print with a print. Here matters are rather different because you are comparing a mark with the instrument which is said to have made it, but I am not sure this is just as recent as has sometimes been suggested because in a well-known, the best known Scottish text book in forensic medicine by Professor Glaister, there is a reference to identification by teeth and it refers to a case in Carlisle in 1906. This case was reported in the British Medical Journal which, I understand is a reputable journal of some standing, on the 10th of February 1906. I t states that two colliers were charged with breaking into the Co- operative Society store and stealing some articles of value. I t was found on examination of the premises that someone had bitten a piece of cheese off the side of a cheese and left the marks of his teeth. Suspicion falling on the two men, they were arrested and one of them unwittingly allowed a cast of his mouth to be made which was found exactly to fit the marks on the cheese. Expert evidence was given by a dentist who stated what all medical men will know to be accurate that no two sets of teeth are identical. The prisoner showed much anxiety that his mouth should be examined to see if his teeth would fit the

800

impression on the cheese, and when this was done very damning evidence was there obtained that since his arrest he had knocked out a stump so he had been very anxious to have his teeth marks taken because he thought the stump which he had knocked out since biting the cheese would provide him with what colloquially might be called an alibi. He was, however, unsuccessful. This is back in 1906 and may I say I don't know what other evidence there was in that case but apparently the evidence of the bite in the cheese was of some substantial importance there. Equally it is of importance here, and as I say, the law must keep pace with science. I think it usually lags a little behind, but it does progress as scientific knowledge advances itself".

A Matter for Experts So you must examine the evidence here in regard to the teeth marks and bite-

marks with substantial care and in the light of your assessment of the witnesses, the experts who gave evidence in this case. Now, it is branch in which I think only the expert could speak with any substantial confidence. Mr. Stewart took the point that Doctor Imrie, a pathologist of 30 years experience had not really considered the question of identifying the assailant by means of the mark on the body. Now, that is a little bit double-edged, because I think i t may show not that Doctor Imrie regards this branch of forensic odontology as being inaccurate or useless or unreliable but merely that he is not an expert in that field, and he would not profess to give an opinion or make an identification on the evidence of a bite-mark and the teeth which were said to have made it. I think, I am not sure if he said this categorically, but he left the plain impression in my mind that he was so far from claiming to be an expert on this matter he was claiming not to be and would not have expressed an opinion. Now, this you see is the problem when we get on to the defence evidence from Professor Beagrie and Mr. McPhee. If you ask a medical man or a dentist a question in the witness box about a field of his profession which he is not personally familiar with he will say "Well, I am not an expert on that, I would rather not deal with that". We had it in this Court a fortnight ago when we were dealing with a case about the effects of cannabis. We had a large number of doctors in the witness box but when they were asked what the effects of cannabis were on somebody who had smoked it, they nearly all said "Well, I really have no experience of this, I think from what I have read it may be this or that but I would rather not give any opinion in a field of medicine with which I am not familiar". To some extent that may be the situation with Professor Beagrie and Mr. McPhee. I am not suggesting that their evidence was other than straightforward, accurate, honestly and clearly given. The thing was this that they were being pushed, you may think, rather beyond the field in which their own expert knowledge lay. Now, no professional man if he is honest and reputable is ever going to say that something is established beyond reasonable doubt by reason of certain facts unless he has sufficient personal experience of the evaluation of these facts. He cannot honestly go as far as that. Now, their evidence must accordingly be assessed, I would suggest with that in mind. They both said quite frankly and quite honestly "We are not experts in this particular field of country". But when you come to the Crown evidence the situation is a little different.

The Crown Experts The Crown started with the evidence of Detective Inspector Butler, who had

been I think closely associated with Dr. Harvey during the investigation. Now, Detective Inspector Butler is not a dentist, he is not a doctor. He has, however, had a long experience in matching what I might call the weapon with the mark, the jemmy with the mark on the door, and that sort of thing. There, of course, he is dealing normally I would imagine with the impact of one solid object on another solid object, not on the impact here of the solid teeth on a yielding piece

201

of flesh. Nevertheless for what it is worth you keep his evidence in mind. He did a lot of the technical work in the preparation and he, for what it is worth, did come to the conclusion that as I recollect it that model 11 had made these marks which you see on the photograph, model 11 was the original cast of the Accused's teeth, but it is really when you come to the evidence of Professor Keith Simpson and of Dr. Harvey that one gets the evidence of people who have had some substantial experience in this field. Let me just warn you of this, the assessment of this evidence is entirely for you. The mere fact that a man is an expert in a particular field does not mean that you are bound to accept him. By our law we have trial by Jury and not trial by experts, so just keep in mind that it is for you to assess the evidence, both of Professor Keith Simpson and of Dr. Harvey. In doing so, however, you will keep in mind that they have both apparently made a special study in this line of country. Indeed as was pointed out in what is apparently the standard text book on this subject, there is a bibliography at the end and something like 10 papers or publications by Professor Keith Simpson on this subject are listed.

"Now, it is quite true that apparently Dr. Imrie with all his experience did not notice anything unusual about this particular bite-mark, and in particular the three marks upon which our attention has been focussed for the last 8 days. But Professor Keith Simpson, having examined the photographs, and he took the view that a photograph in this particular case anyway was just as good as seeing the body, he said he thought the bite-marks are quite remarkable and unique that in his 30 years' experience he had never seen a bite-mark with better defined details, and he came to the conclusion that he would be satisfied that this set of teeth, that is the Accused's set, caused these marks. He was cross-examined but as I understand it in the end of the day that was still his view, he was satisfied that it was the Accused's teeth which had made these marks."

The Bite-marks-Quality or Quantity

"Now there are here in fact I think three marks. I t was suggested that four of five were needed for reliable identification. As I understand the evidence, however, of the Crown experts it is not so much the number of marks as the quality, the definition, the uniqueness or the unusual features which they have that matter and here with three marks you can have, as it were, triangulation, so that you can superimpose with some accuracy in order to get the comparison which you need. I t is true, as Professor Beagrie and Mr. McPhee pointed out, with yielding flesh you may get distortion, particularly with a sucking bite as here, but to some extent at any rate that has been allowed for because the transparencies on this Production No. 11 are to a slightly larger scale than the photograph of the breast so that that allows for the sucking in of the flesh before the bite is firm. What I mean is this, when the bite-marks actually take place the flesh is contracted, when the teeth are removed the breast goes out, it rebounds to its normal expansion and for that reason in order to get a fair comparison you must enlarge the photograph of the teeth and then superimpose at that stage.

"Now, Dr. Harvey was, if anything, I think even stronger than Professor Keith Simpson. He was asked if he was making a positive identification, and he said "With these particular characteristics and with what you have tried to show me in other sets of teeth I find this extremely difficult to believe that there could be another mouth which would cause a bite on the breast like those shown on these photographs". He had earlier said in answer to the Solicitor General "I find it extremely difficult to conceive that another mouth would have made this number of extraordinary characteristics" and these characteristics were, I think, a combination of three things; one was the pair of teeth said to have made the big bruise, with the fracture on one and a hook caused by

202

part of a missing stopping or a hole on the other adjacent to each other, and the two marks apparently made by an upper and lower canine, tiny circles with a white centre. Now, there has been quite a lot of evidence about how common defects or holes or pits are in opposing canines. There may well be many defects but on the Crown evidence here what is significant is that here you get two unground canines, opposing canines, each having a pit, in the narrow sense of the word; a pit probably caused by hypo-calcification, or something of that sort, and there is evidence that that type of tooth is uncommon, particularly in a young age group, and that a pair of opposing canines of that sort is even more uncommon, and it may be that as the Solicitor General suggested Pro- fessor Beagrie and Mr. McPhee may not have fully appreciated just what the Crown case was based on; that is a matter for you to decide and I may say it is no reflection on either of these eminent witnesses if you should take that view.

"Mr. Furness, who was the other expert, did not go further than to say it was more than likely that No. 11, that is the Accused's teeth, caused the marks. I know a lot of people do not like experts and listen to them pretty carefully before they are prepared to accept what they say, but here you have a case very fully before you and really we are back in the situation where we started that you have to assess the evidence and decide on that evidence whether the Crown has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. If you find that the Crown have so proved their case then your verdict would be a verdict of guilty as libelled. If you are left in reasonable doubt, or indeed if you, to put i t even higher, if you were to accept the Accused's evidence or the alibi evidence and were quite definite that the Accused did not do this you would acquit, and, of course, if on a balance you thought there was reasonable doubt you would also acquit.

The Possible Verdicts

"There are just three verdicts open to you, a verdict of guilty as libelled, and the two acquittal verdicts, not guilty or not proven. You can return your verdict either unanimously or, if you fail to agree, by a majority. If the verdict is guilty by a majority there must be at least 8 of you in favour of that verdict. That may sound a glimpse of the obvious as there are 15 of you in the Jury box but I have to put it to you that way because a Jury did on one occasion return a verdict of guilty when there were only 7 for guilty, four for not guilty and four for not proven and, of course, that should have been an aquittal; fortunately it was discovered, so you will keep that in mind in coming to such a decision as you make.

"I think I have said all I need say. If you wish any further direction or guidance don't hesitate to ask for it. If you want to see any of the Productions you can have them, for example, this piece of string or any of the Productions. If you do study the Productions, however, may I sound one note of warning. Productions are here in order to help you to evaluate the evidence which has been given and in order to illustrate graphically that oral evidence. Use them accordingly in order to assess the value of the evidence you have heard but don't set yourselves up in the Jury room as experts yourselves and try and work out theories of your own based on your own view of the Production which you have. I think you will understand what I mean. Productions are there to assist you to evaluate the evidence, not to enable you to build upon them new theories which you evolve or might evolve yourselves.

"I can take a verdict from you at any time, either by a majority or unanimously. Eaturally one prefers a unanimous verdict but it is not all that often that one gets it. I t is a matter entirely for you. When you retire I suggest that you should appoint one of you to act as your spokesman when you come back to return your verdict. Would you now retire, ladies and gentlemen, and consider your verdict".

The Jury retired at 11-48 a.m. 203

Verdict and Sentence Upon their return at 2-15 p.m. THE CLERK OF COURT: Members of the Jury, who speaks for you? THE FOREMAN OF THE JURY: I do. THE CLERK OF COURT: Have you considered your verdict? THE FOREMAN OF THE JURY: We have. THE CLERK OF COURT: What is your verdict? THE FOREMAN OF THE JURY: We find the Accused guilty as libelled. THE CLERK OF COURT: Is that unanimous or by a majority? THE FOREMAN OF THE JURY: I t is by a majority. THE CLERK OF COURT: Members of the Jury, does this correctly record

your verdict: The Jury, by a majority, find the Panel guilty of murder as libelled?

THE FOREMAN OF THE JURY: Yes. THE ADVOCATE DEPUTE: I move, My Lord, for sentence. THE LORD JUSTICE CLERK: Gordon Hay, by Statute there is only

one sentence I can pass on you because you were under 18 at the date of this crime. The sentence is that you be detained during Her Majesty's Pleasure.

SOME LEGAL ASPECTS The Critical Point of Suspicion

In England the questioning and examining of suspects is regulated by the Judges' Rules. As revised in 1966 these rules clearly sanction the interrogation of suspects (Police Powers Questioning: A General View-Ian Brownlie [I9671 Crim L.R.75-91).

By contrast Scottisll pre-trial procedure is only governed by the judiciary in the sense that they may subsequently disallow evidence which lias been obtained in a manner which they consider to be unfair or improper (Lord Justice- General Cooper in Chalmers v. H.M. Advocate 1954 J.C. 66 at p. 77). In Scotland the law recognises that a critical point occurs in the investigation of crime when suspicion hardens in the mind of the investigator that a particular person has a serious connection with the crime. Up to that point questions may be asked and the replies elicited will be freely admissible in evidence, but beyond the point when suspicion crystallises the police must proceed with utmost caution. This is because the rights of the person likely to be accused must now be respected. The law has been jealous to guard the suspect against himself in the period following this critical point: some have thought too jealous (cf. A. Dewar Gibb: Fair Play for the Criminal: (1954) 66 J.R. 199-230).

The Scottish rule, therefore, discourages police interrogation and makes it clear that only freely offered information and truly voluntary statements may be taken from the suspect. I t has even been said that the police should decline to hear statements in this period volunteered by an accused who should be hustled before a Sheriff to emit a formal declaration (H.M. Advocate v. Christie, 3rd November 1961 (unreported); cf. D.B. Smith-1961 S.L.T. 179; H.M. Advocate v. McSwiggan 1937 J.C. 50). Although this probably was the law and was so stated by Lord Kilbrandon recently (The Accused: A Comparative Study-1966: Ed. J.A. Coutts p. 65) it now appears to be confirmed by the most recent case of Thompson v. H.M. Advocate 1968 S.L.T. 339 that confessions offered to the police in circumstances which satisfy the test of fairness are admissible. Manuel the multiple murderer was allowed to write out a confession after arrest and this was received in evidence and indeed contained intrinsic corroboration of its authenticity: 1958 J.C. 41. Thompson's abortive appeal arose from a case in which a youth arrested for the murder of his grand- mother was allowed to disburden himself of a confession to a senior police officer which he later vainly claimed to be a police fabrication. This reversion to crediting the police with a measure of responsibility and diminishing the monu- mental emphasis upon the rights of the individual is in accord with recent

204

judicial and indeed political trends. But the limits beyond which it would be unwise to go along these lines are perhaps beginning to appear.

Any attempt to force the accused to incriminate himself or to compel him to provide material which could be used against himself in the twilight zone after suspicion has centred on him would, of course, render the evidence open to serious challenge in subsequent criminal proceedings. I t is probable that evidence obtained by a trick or by deceitful inducements would not be admitted (Walker & Walker: Law of Evidence in Scotland, 36) though Dewar Gibb suspected that induced statements would in England fall under no such con- demnation (Fair Play for the Criminal cit. su$ra. at p. 227) and the main test in England seems to be whether the admissions are likely to be true. Evidence improperly obtained would in Scotland only be admitted where the Court were satisfied that the evidence was relevant, the irregularity was excusable and the need for fairness to the accused was more than counterbalanced by the interest of the State in securing a conviction (Lawrie v. Muir 1950 J.C. 19; Fairley v. Fishmongers of London 1951 J.C. 14; Brown v. H.M. Advocate 1966 S.L.T. 105; Milne v. Cullen 1967 S.L.T. 35). Fingernail scrapings taken forcibly before arrest were not admissible in one case (McGovern v. H.M. Advocate 1950 J.C. 33) though rubbings from the hands of suspected copper thieves were, on account of their transience, in another (Bell & Others v. Hogg 1967 S.L.T. 290).

The comparable English law regarding evidence improperly obtained adopts a more permissive approach (Kuruma v. R. [I9551 A.C. 197 P.C.) (cf. Crompton J. "It matters not how you get it, if you steal it even, it would be admissible": R. v. Leathern (1861) 8 Cox C.C. 498 at p. 503) and some academic commenta- tors have envied the balanced Scottish solution (Cowen & Carter: Essays on the Law of Evidence).

Perhaps it is from the unfortunate coincidence of the time at which police interest quickens and legal scruples as to reticence and fairness begin to bite that the traditional antipathy of the police to the legal profession springs. I t is asking a lot of human nature to require that at the very point when progress seems about to be made the artificial restraints imposed by law, in which solicitors will later interest themselves, must be brought into play.

Once the stage of arrest is reached, however, the police have greater latitude for closer examination if not for interrogation. An accused once arrested may be fingerprinted, photographed, stripped and searched, probed and examined for marks or blood stains on his body (Adair v. McGarry 1933 J.C. 72; Forrester v. H.M. Advocate 1952 J.C. 28), and it follows that his teeth may be super- ficially or indeed closely examined, if necessary by an experienced dentist. I t is interesting to note that this Scottish pre-trial procedure is shortly to be reconsidered by the Scottish Law Commission (Second Programme of Law Reform: Scot. Law Com. No. 8).

Seeking Warrant to go further

The first dental impressions in the present case were taken by consent and after caution from twenty-nine persons (including Hay) in the locality of the crime. The second impressions were taken from Hay and four others under the original consent forms whose terms were reiterated to the youths. There- after there is no doubt that Hay was under the gravest suspicion and the concern of the Crown authorities was to strengthen and confirm the evidence they held implicating him in the crime. Even more careful impressions and measurements were thus realised to be desirable. To meet the possibility that Hay might refuse, or might destroy the evidence in his own mouth, or that the approved school authorities might decline to co-operate in further disruption

205

of their routine, the procurator fiscal decided to apply to the Sheriff at Lanark for warrant to have the third impressions, measurements and photographs taken. No intimation of this application was made to the Accused nor to the approved school authorities since the step was seen as the mere interposition of an independent judicial officer seeking to hold a fair balance between the Accused and his prosecutor a t a preliminary stage of the enquiry. Lord Kilbrandon has written "It can never be right for a judge to use a rubber stamp" (The Accused: A Comparative Study cit. supra. p. 67). Given the singular circumstances there is thus little doubt that the Sheriff gave serious consideration to the application as being unique in Scottish legal history. I t was inevitable that the legality of the warrant so granted should be closely scrutinised and challenged a t a later stage of the case.

The Warrant Challenged The point was duly raised by way of an objection to the competency of the

evidence of the first police witness to mention the warrant on the second day of the trial. Since it opened a matter of considerable importance and difficulty the jury were temporarily discharged and the trial judge heard legal argument on the propriety of the procedure. On the morning of the third day, having given the point overnight consideration, the Lord Justice-Clerk certified the case for consideration by two additional judges (Lords Walker and Milligan) to hear afresh the arguments and to help to decide the competency of the warrant. In itself this was a rare judicial gambit sanctioned by the Court of Justiciary (Scotland) Act 1868 (see also Macdonald: Criminal Law of Scotland 5th Ed. p. 194). At least twice in modern times a difficult case has been certified- once in H.M. Advocate v. Bickerstaff 1926 J.C. 65 (to a full bench) and again in H.M. Advocate v. Wilson 1942 J.C. 75 (to a bench of five judges). Such a special Court decides by majority and each judge may deliver a separate opinion: Criminal Appeal (Scotland) Act 1926 section 12(3), which accords with the normal rule of Scottish procedure.

The augmented Court in the event accepted that there was no previous direct authority for the proposition that the police may seek a warrant for physical examination before arrest, though warrant had been granted before arrest for search of premises. There were obiter dicta in a civil action concerning delivery of photographs and fingerprint records (Adamson v. Martin 1916 S.C. 319 per Lord Guthrie at p. 331) which suggested not that such a step was impossible, but merely that it had never been taken. The three judges decided, therefore, that the procedure in Hay's case had been fair and regular, and even if there had been irregularity (which they said there had not) the interests of justice demanded that the evidence of the third impressions taken in pursuance of the Sheriff's warrant should be admitted. Having delivered this unanimous judgment the augmented Court then withdrew and the trial proceeded.

The Appeal Following conviction the Accused gave notice of appeal. The main purpose

of the appeal was to test before the Court of Criminal Appeal, which is the final and supreme Court in Scottish criminal matters, the correctness of the decision of the judicial triumvirate and the competency of the dental evidence resulting from the third impressions.

The appeal Court, sitting as a Court of five judges under the chairmanship of the Lord Justice-General (Clyde), unanimously held on 17th May, 1968, that the obtaining of warrant rendered the examination of the Accused before arrest quite legal, and the resulting evidence perfectly admissible and competent. Even if the warrant had been ultra vires, said the appeal Court, the urgency of the circumstances and the transient nature of the evidence (a visit to the dentist or a mouth injury could have destroyed it) would have been sufficient to render the dental evidence admissible: Hay v. H.M. Advocate 1968 S.L.T. 334.

206

The Court's acceptance of the implications of the scientific evidence in the teeth of a searching defence (to quote Professor Keith Simpson's apt phrase) underlines two significant features of this case. The first is the virtual identity for practical purposes between the issue raised by the dental evidence ("is it proved beyond reasonable doubt that Hay's teeth caused the marks on the deceased's body?") and the issue for decision by the jury ("is it proved beyond reasonable doubt that Hay assaulted and murdered the deceased?"). There is a rule recognised by both English and Scots law (Cross: Evidence 3rd Ed. 361; Walker & Walker: Evidence, 431) to the effect that expert evidence may not be permitted to answer the de quo quaeritur, the central issue committed to the Court for decision, for to allow this would be to usurp the function of the jury and transfer the decision to the hands of experts: G. v. G. 1924 S.C. (H.L.) 42; R. v. Macnaughton (1843) 10 C1. & F. 200; Rich v. Pierpoint (1862) 3 F. & F. 35; R. v. Mason (1911) 7 C.A.R. 67; cf. Ireland v. Taylor [I9491 1 K.B. 300, and commentary on R. v. Penguin Books Ltd. [I9611 Crim. L.R. 176 at p. 179. I t seems that this rule will have to be clarified and re-defined for the future. Had the point been taken, however, it is probable that the Court would have dis- counted it since, so far as regards the charge of murder, the issues though proxi- mate are not identical, and of course the jury are free to evaluate the scientific evidence and if so advised to discard or reject it altogether.

The second feature is the striking reliance placed upon the dental evidence. Despite the dictum of Lord Justice-General Dunedin in H.M. Advocate v. Brown 1907 S.C. (J.) 67 at p. 77 that the Courts have a duty to follow the discoveries of science so far as they can, the Scottish record in adopting the advances of science has not always been remarkable (Brownlie, 1965, 1966). Recent cases have, however, pointed to some improvement---e.g., Richardson & Anor. v. Clark 1957 J.C. 7 (handwriting evidence); Bell & Others v. Hogg 1967 S.L.T. 290 (hand rubbings). The present case suggests that judges and juries may now be prepared in suitable cases to recognise and trust the skilled and conscientious contribution which scientific evidence can make to the advancement of justice. If there is any reservation about the welcome to be given to such a development it can only be that difficulties still exist for the defence in meeting and challenging scientific evidence-cf. The Expert Witness (1968) 8.J. Forens. Sci. Soc. 1.

It is only necessary to add that the Court clearly recognised the exceptional nature of this casesothat there is no likelihood of compulsory dental examination becoming a standard feature of Scots pre-trial criminal procedure. Nevertheless the power given to the prosecution to secure important evidence from the hitherto impregnable person of the suspect may well be used again and again where the exigencies of justice demand it.

SOME DENTAL ASPECTS Comment on the Trial

I t is only fair to consider some of the comments made before, during and after the trial and to seek dispassionately to put them into true perspective.

Several individuals examined for varying periods the 29 sets of plaster models of persons whom the police were unable to exclude. Differences in the short lists were to be expected; but it was the similarities which were so remarkable, as shown in Table 8.

Numbers 6, 11, 14, 19 and 26 have been considered in detail in Tables 1 and 2; Number 8 has been discussed alone; Numbers 1 and 15 are analysed in Table 9.

Throughout the dental evidence it became clear to us that we were quite certain that discrete pits in the unworn tips of the canines of a boy of 16 were not common, and that, such opposing pits were remarkably rare; in contrast the defence dental witnesses and counsel reiterated that "defects" in the tips of canines were common-with which we agree quite openly; but these "defects" were almost all horizontal or oblique wear facets, usually flat, sometimes saucer-

shaped-as described in Number 8, Tables 7 and 11; these "defects" are completely different from the sharp edged, clear cut pits in Hay's teeth, situated like small craters on the pinnacles of the tips of the canines.

TABLE 8

Investigator

O.B., 1I.L.. W.H.

Model Numbers Comment

6 11 14 19 26 28 O n l y l l h a d the unique combination of characteristics necessary

J . F . 8 11 14

A.N.O. 1 S 11

G.B.. T.McP. 1 8 11

G.B. 1 8 11 14

T. McP. 8 11 14

Teeth

Relevant characteristics

TABLE 9

Model Number 1 (Figure 25)

Horizontal circular wear facet almost flat or slightly saucer- shaped

19 26 28 Only 11 had the equipment to make the bite

Wear facet on incisal edge

Gaps

Anterior oblique wear facet

Horizontal circular wear facet

Horizontal wear facets Regular arch

Posterior oblique oval facet

Contain 6 opposing defects

Agreed that 11 could have made the bite-marks but not beyond reasonable doubt

Model Number 15 (Figure 26)

Anterior oblique oval wear facet

Anterior oblique round wear facet

Horizontal wear facet, saucer-shaped, between buccal and lingual enamel walls

Horizontal wear facets with imbrication or crowded irregularity. Difficult to believe that these would not leave utterly characteristic marks

Posterior oblique oval flat facet

No fractured teeth. No tooth which could possibly cause a ring mark with a pale centre

208

In the trial it was alleged that these facet "defects" and also sharp pointed canines could cause on skin a ring mark with a pale centre; a miscellany of odd shaped canines is shown in Figure 27; all of which cause red marks with no pale centre, when pressed on skin. The principle of the difference in skin reaction seen in the mark caused by a hollow pressure-face compared with that due to a solid rod of the same diameter, was shown to the jury using a plastic tube and a wooden stick; this was repeated using the copper models of Hay's left and right canines. One of the defence dental witnesses stated that he knew of no report of how small a hole or pit would produce a ring mark in skin; we thought that this was reasonable and worthy of remedy. A large hexagonal drawing pencil was cut into flat-ended sections 1 to 2 centimetres long with a

Figures 25 and 26. Show uppcr and lower models of Numbers 1 and 15 (scc Table 8). licasons why thcsc tcetli could not havc caused thc bite-marks in I'igurc 6 arc given in

Table 9.

carborundum disc in a handpiece. Another similar pencil was sharpened in a Boston 200 machine to a truncated cone leaving a flat lead tip 2 to 3 millimetres in diameter-these were sectioned into lengths each about 3 centimetres. In each series the central leads were then drilled with dental round burs size 2 to 10 so that the drill head just disappeared into the lead. Then a series of dental, hypodermic, angiocath and aspirating needles was collected from gauge 30 to gauge 12, and the point of each hollow needle was removed with a dental abrasive disc to leave a smooth level rim to the needle. We then had a series of holes or pits presenting in the centre of different pressure-face areas; each was pressed into the nail bed of a finger in turn, starting with the smallest. The size of the burs and needles is shown in Table 10 and the results in Table 11:-

209

TABLE 10

Gauge

Needles Size in mm.

Inside Outside Diameter Diameter

0.15 0.30 0.20 0.40

Round Dental Burs

Size in Number mm.

Figure 27. A group of canine teeth with sharp pointed, blunt, flat and grooved tips. All of these cause red marks when impressed into tissue, quite unlike Hay's right canine teeth. A fox's canine, a supernumcrary and a margoid tubercle (Bruszt, 1968) are included.

TABLE 11

Instrument

Pencil with flat hexagonal 8 mm. base

Pencil sharpened to base 2 to 3 mm.

Needle with smooth rim

Ball point pen with point rctracted

Copper model of Hay's 3 1

When pressed into nail bed this size hole or pit leaves a clear pale centre in a red ring or red area

Bur size 2

Size in millimetres

1 .oo

Bur size ) 0.58

Gauge 21 0.50 inside diameter 0.80 outside diameter

2.00 approx.

2.00 x 1.00 approx.

Copper model of Hay's 3 1 1.00 x 1.00 approx.

The depth of the pit in Hay's lower right canine (3) varied from 0.150 to 0.250 millimetre, while the upper right canine pit varied from 0.300 to 0.325 millimetre.

210

We wished to determine how long a ring mark with a pale centre might last on skin. Into the tips of each of 4 intact extracted canine teeth was drilled a cavity with a round Hi Di diamond dental drill to the depth of the head of the drill by Mr. A. McLundie; the drill was found to be 0.88 millimetre in diameter and the cavity is approximately 1.0 millimetre in diameter (Figure 28). Using a balance, a force of one kilogramme was applied to each tooth on the nail bed of each of 4 fingers (which was quite painful). Photographs (Figure 29) were taken at minute intervals and after 11 minutes the marks were indistinct. This was repeated using the copper models of Hay's teeth with similar time fade results. Where physiology plays no part, John Furness (unreported) has seen a body exhumed after being buried a year and the bite-marks on the skin were quite clear.

Camps (1968) mentions the difference in distance between marks on the skin in differing postural positions, e.g., flexion and extension. I t seemed important to realise also that tissues in different age groups and physiological states could also affect measurements between individual bite-marks. So, a very thin sheet of clear plastic was placed over the marks on one of the normal size photographs of the victim's right breast; on the plastic were marked the centres of A and E and the centre of the Y marking on C (Figure 6). Holes approximately 2 millimetres in diameter were drilled at these 3 marks to make a gig or marker. The three subjects chosen were 1, a girl of 138 quite as well developed as Linda, 2, a slim multipara of 26 breast feeding her second child, and, 3, a shapely multipara of 50 who had breast fed 3 children; 3 marks were made through the plastic gig on the right breast of each subject just left of the right nipple with the subject sitting up; the positions of the 3 marks was checked with the subjects lying down, and the results of several tests are shown in Table 12:-

TABLE 12 Affects of posture and physiology on breast mark

Age of female 13 26 50 Sitting up Horizontal and vertical Horizontal width decreased

width both increased Vertical width increased Lying down Horizontal and vertical Horizontal width increased

width both decreased Vertical width decreased

The width of the marks on Linda's breast lying down were probably less than if she were alive and upright. Perhaps prepuberty, menstrual periods, nul- liparous spinsters and the effects of rigor mortis on bite-marks could form the basis for an extended similar study, and grant, for someone's Ph.D.! Nevertheless it gives food for thought-we still believe that the girl's right breast was bitten when she was sitting up, with her left hand controlled by a ligature (burned off after death) and maybe behind her; her assailant came from behind and above -over her right shoulder; the marks on her neck strongly suggest that she was strangled from behind; blood from the head wounds had time to clot when she was vertical (Figures 2 and 3 both show this); Hay's jeans were reported to be muddy at the knees-as if he had been kneeling-when he arrived in his dormitory dishevelled, dirty and sweating just before lights-out about 10-30 p.m. on the evening of the murder. In this case the extra enlargement of the transparencies necessary to demonstrate the considerable correspondence in detail between the teeth and the breast marks was 0.9 per cent.

Before, during and after the trial we were immeasurably strengthened by the scrupulous demands for accuracy and fairness, and the complete command of untoward situations shown at all times by Professor Keith Simpson. At the beginning of November, 1967, we were also enormously encouraged when we were told in a letter by a world authority in forensic odontology that this difficult case "had been admirably handled". We are told that no forensic dental case has been perfectly handled, so indeed we, too, are well aware that "we have left undone those things which we ought to have done and we have done those things

211

Figure 28. A photograph (x 7.5) of a canine tooth with a cavity approximately 1.0 millimetre drilled in the tip ; this is about the size of the pit in Hay's lower right canine tooth.

Figure 29. Ring shaped marks in a nail bed produced by the canine tooth shown in Figure 28, and other canine teeth similarly prepared.

212

which we ought not to have done". Naturally, therefore, we have reflected upon what should be the ideal procedure in a case involving a bite-mark.

Suggested Procedure in Future Cases. The following points may be enumerated:-

1. A dentist with forensic experience and knowledge should see the mark before the body is moved.

2. Black and white (and maybe colour) photographs should be taken with a metric scale beside the mark before the body is moved, with the dentist present if possible.

3. Swabs should be taken of the dried saliva on the bite-marks for blood grouping of the assailant (Pereira 1953 and 1968, Schaidt 1954, Pietrusky 1955, Gustafson 1966, Furuhata and Yamamoto 1967, Camps 1968, Forbes 1968, Simpson 1968) before the body is moved.

4. A sketch should be drawn, lettered, and individual marks measured before the body is moved.

5. Impressions should be taken in alginate, silicone or rubber base material before the body is moved, including some local "land mark" such as an ear, if possible.

6. Consultation by the dentist a t autopsy with the pathologist, making certain that the whole body is inspected, remembering the problems of bite-marks in regions of hair (Furness 1968). Photographs using ultra violet or infra red lighting have at times been helpful. Postmortem photographs taken a t intervals even up to seven days may display marks in skin which originally were very faint, but details may become increasingly blurred and confluent.

7. Removal if necessary of a large area around the mark at autopsy, e.g., the whole breast (Strom 1963, Simpson 1947, 1951).

8. Most careful inspection should be made for traces of the assailant (e.g., skin between the victim's teeth-Butler, 1966)

9. Impressions of the victim's mouth should be taken in case she was made to bite herself, or bit her assailant.

10. Any recently fractured teeth should be extracted from the dead body in case the missing piece is found on the assailant or marks are found on the assailant, which match this tooth. Removal of both jaws may be essential for extended study.

11. Perhaps after the 5th or 6th case a forensic odontologist might have acquired the skill, knowledge and experience necessary properly to assess skin abrasions in bite-marks; lesser mortals will not lose face but will gain in wisdom by humbly sitting at the feet of a forensic pathologist who may have spent a lifetime specialising in this subject. Boundless co-operation will more than balance any suspected poaching inclinations on dental preserves !

I t must be realised that if in this case all ideal procedures had been practised, measurement of the breast bite-marks before the recumbent body was moved could have been misleading if (as we believe) the bite was made when the girl was sitting up.

Further dental comment following the trial For a while the apparent paucity of evidence did dismay us, but later the

significance and detail of the characteristic marks, in combination, confidently disrupted any preconceived ideas of a "requisite number of points" needed for identification. Three main marks did seem meagre, but then, to Pythagoras 3 was "Perfect Harmony, the union of unity with diversityH-and the ring marks were certainly diverse from anything we knew or had read about. I t never occurred to us to decline to co-operate because all the postulates of the perfect case were not obvious and ripe for a speedy solution. "Don't look if it sounds difficult" is a dogma that is alien and anathema.

%I3

Valiant efforts were made to preserve ethics and protocol. There was not the merest whiff of suspicion by the dental personnel actively engagedin thecase that Hay was the chief police suspect, until we informed them that Number 11 was our sole suspect in the third week of September in 1967. The police behaviour was quite impeccable.

At no time were there less than two dentists working on the case; in Court the dental witnesses for the Crown gave their evidence independently and were not allowed in Court until their evidence had been given; however, reports of part of the trial were in the evening papers in Edinburgh, and the daily papers next morning.

The rate of violent crime in Glasgow has doubled in the last five years; the two very experienced pathologists who carried out the post mortem considered without doubt that the marks on Linda's right breast were bite-marks-which they had seen many times in previous cases. A police officer (O.B.) but no dentist saw these marks. Many photographs were taken of the breast and bite- marks both a t the scene of the murder and in the mortuary; comparisons were made using the photograph showing the greatest detail. Three dentists, a forensic pathologist and three police officers independently came to the conclusion that Hay murdered Linda Pea-ock from behind and bit her right breast by approaching over her right shoulder.

The marks on the right breast were considered by Detective Sergeant Paton (19 years police experience) to be human bite-marks and he took at least 15 photographs of the breast. Dr. Imrie and Dr. Weir, both very experienced consultant pathologists with a t least 50 years police experience between them, both considered that these were bite-marks--and they had seen many before. One of us who saw the marks, a Detective Inspector with 22 years police experience-17 of them in the Identification Bureau in Glasgow, considered that they were bite-marks. Evidence given by Professor Keith Simpson in a bite- mark case may be likened to Chopin's music played by Malcuzynski; it is so superb technically and artistically that argument is quite unseemly! He had no doubt whatever but that these were human bite-marks. The Lord Justice- Clerk, the jury (14 of them a t least), the Solicitor General, Mr. W. I. Stewart, Q.C., for the defence, the defence dental experts, ourselves and everyone who has had access to the full evidence and productions (photographs and models) with time to study them, believe that these marks were made bv human teeth. Nevertheless we are aware of an i d k e j x e abroad that the marks might have been made by some 'Jewellery, watch, pendant or sheriff's star' on the girl or in a pocket or bought as a present by her assailant. We felt that it would be dis- courteous and unwise not to make clear that this had been checked routinely, and further, to try to dispel the least lingering doubt. First, the girl's anorak, cardigan, blouse and brassiere had no breast pocket on the left or right side; as can be seen in Figure 1, many of her possessions were strewn on the grass as she was dragged along feet first, and there was nothing in or on her clothes which could have made the mark. Linda was not known to be wearing any jewellery or star, and none is missing from her home. I t has already been stated that Hay boasted of gifts which he said he gave to girls, yet no boy at Loaningdale mentioned anything like this. An intensive and unsuccessful search in the school and in the cemetery was carried out with special suction cleaners for the missing winder of Hay's wrist watch. No discarded jewellery was found. We have checked that there is no likelihood at all that the watch could have made the marks on the breast. A variety of inexpensive brooches and pendants, old and "new", was examined front and back; nothing which could possibly have caused the breast marks was found (Figure 30). Some boots have metal tips and heels (Figure 31), but none of this collection could cause the marks. An attempt was made to construct a sort of Emmet-like device which could conceivably make a mark resembling Figure 3; we were reminded of Piglet and the Very Deep Pit (Milne, 1945). In short, we have

214

no dount whatsoever that Gordon Hay's teeth made the marks on Linda Peacock's breast.

Figure 30. A random series of 10 brooches and pendants photographed from the side which would normally be nearest the skin. None of these--even the sheriff's plastic star- produce

marks in tissue which might be confused with the bite-marks seen in this case.

If, as we believe, the ring marks with a pale centre are unusual (seen in normal light) but have an ascertained and logical cause, then "Rara juvent; primis sic major gratia pomis; Hiberniae praetium sic meruere rosae" (Martial 40-104). We were confident that we were dealing with the uncommon rather than the unbelievable. Even fingerprints may present strange patterns (Penrose, 1968). Bite-marks photographed under ultra-violet light may show a ring pattern, considered to be due to a tendency for melanocytes to migrate to the periphery of the wound (Camps, 1968).

Few British murder cases before this have hinged or been largely dependent on dental evidence-Simpson (1951), Furness (1968). This is the first murder trial in Scotland in which the Crown relied mainly on forensic odontology. I t is the first case in Scotland in which impressions of a suspect's teeth-"search of the person"-were taken by warrant of the Sheriff before the accused was arrested. I t is the first case in Britain in which a murderer was convicted on only three main, but highly characteristic, marks of a bite on a breast.

Finally, our aim throughout these investigations and trial was an attempt to reach the high standard so admirably set by Keiser-Nielsen (1967) when he described forensic odontology as: "the proper handling and examination of the dental evidence, in the interests of justice, so that the dental findings may be properly presented and evaluated".

215

Figure 31. These heel and toe caps and odd bits of metal do not produce marks which could in any way masquerade as bite-marks. Golf shoes and climbing boots were similarly

considered and dismissed.

Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank all those who in any way helped with the

investigations and trial-some we have mentioned, and to all we are grateful. Sir James Robertson and Mr. James McLellan, Chief Constables of Glasgow and Lanarkshire, gave us unstinted help and support. I t was a privilege to work with Detective Chief Superintendent W. Muncie and Detective Superintendent J. Weir, whose patience, persistence and sense of humour solved so many problems. Dr. Henry Noble's balanced views and loyalty were a mainstay to us. We are grateful to Professor M. Gibson for his help in the initial stages; Professor A. D. Hitchin offered his help at a most crucial phase; we would like to thank Professor T. White for making it possible for us to continue the confirmatory investigations. We are grateful to Mr. Murdoch McNeil, Captain H. Pritchard, Mr. T. J. Cochrane and Lord Walsingham. We would like to thank Mr. A. Stewart and Mr. Dan Graham, Professor Kennedi and Detective Sergeant Blincaw, Dr. J. A. Imrie, Professor G. Forbes and Dr. E. Rentoul, Mr. L. Hay- ward and Mr. Albany Butler. We would also like to thank Mrs. M. Darroch for Table 3, and Mr. J. Davies for Figures 13, 14, 15 and 28. We are most grateful to the Librarians of New Scotland Yard, the British Dental Association, the Royal Society of Medicine, Glasgow Dental Hospital and the Mitchell Library. We would like to thank Dr. Tony Naylor, whose eagerness to help took him over rough country and the Border itself, only to be unseated in the last mile. We shall continue to thank Professor Keith Simpson, not only for his wide knowledge and profound wisdom, but also for his loyalty, integrity and companionship. We shall long remember Dr. Soren Keiser-Nielsen's help, stimulation, friendship and search for truth. Humbly we would also like to thank Lord Grant, Counsel on both sides, Mr. Morton, Mr. Chalmers and the Crown Office for their consideration, courtesy and kindness. We are very grateful to Sergeant Barbara Reid, Miss MacDonald and Miss Margaret Kennedy who have patiently typed for hours for us. Finally, we would like to thank all our colleagues-cleaners, drivers, consultants, technicians, nurses, secretaries, men on the beat and a t the top, for any and every way they helped to take the sting out of some of the difficulties in the problems we met in this unique case.

216

References BARR, J. H. (1957), J. dent. Res., 36, 536. BERG, S., and SCHAIDT, G. (1954), Kriminal wissenschaft, Beilage zur

Kriminalistik., 1, 128. BRUSZT, P. (1968), Bull Group In t . Rech. Sc. Stomat., 2, 83. BROWNLIE, A. R. (1965), J. For. Sci. Soc., 5, 123. BROWNLIE, A. R. (1966), J. Law SOL. Scot., 9, 328. BUTLER, 0 . H. (1966), Police J., 39, 12. BRUKER, M. (1943), J. dent. Res., 22, 115. CAMPBELL, J . MENZIES (1963), Dentistry then and now, privately printed,

Pickering and Inglis, Glasgow. CAMPS, F. E. (1968), Gradwohl's Legal Medicine, Wright, Bristol, and Personal

Communication. CAMPS, F. E., and PURCHASE, W. B. (1956), Practical Forensic Medicine, Hut-

chinsons, London. CASPAR, J. L. (1861), A handbook of the practice of forensic medicine, New Syden-

ham Soc., London. COHEN OF BIRKENHEAD, RT. HON. LORD (1967), Proc. roy. Soc. med., 60, 673. COLE, A. (1962), Identification News, 7, 6. Editorial (1938), Police J., 11, 412. ENKLAAK, F. (1964), Identification News, 14, 4. EULER, H. (1929), Dtsch. zahnarztl wschr., 32, 37. F.B.I. 1959 Policy (1965), Int . Crime Pol. Rev., 186. FEARNHEAD, R. W. (1961), Med. Sci. Law, 1, 273. FEARNHEAD, R. W. (1963), In t . Cong., Series 80, 184 Excerpa Medica Found.,

Amsterdam. FORBES, G. (1968), Personal Communication. FURNESS, J. (1968), Brit. dent. J., 124, 261. FURUHATA, T., and YAMAMOTO K. (1967), Forensic Odontology, Ishiyaku Pub.

Inc., Tokyo. GIBB, A. D. (1928), Police J., 1, 540. GLAISTER, J. (1925), Legal medicine, Stenhouse, Glasgow. GLAISTER, J., and BRASH, J. C. (1937), Medicolegal aspects of the Ruxton case,

Livingstone, Edinburgh. GLAISTER, J., and RENTOUL, E. (1962), Medical jurisprudence and toxicology,

Livingstone, Edinburgh. GORDON, I., TURNER, R., and PRICE, T. W. (1953), Medical jurisprudence,

Livingstone, Edinburgh. GROSS, H., ADAM, J., COLLYER, ADAM, J. (1949), Criminal investigation, Sweet

and Maxwell, London. GUSTAFSON, G. (1966), Forensic Odontology, Staples, London. HARVEY, W. (1966), In t . Pol. Crim. Rev., 199. HARVEY, W. (1966), Brit. dent. J., 121, 7. HARVEY, W. (1967), Australian Pol. J., 278. HARVEY. W. (1968), Dental News, 2, 8. HARVEY, W. (1968), Ibid., 3, 1. VAN HECKE, W. (1966), Med. Sci . Law, 6 , 47. HERTZOG, A. W. (1931), Medical jurisprudence, Bobbs-Merrill, Indianapolis. Home Office (1968), Children in trouble, H.M.S.O., Comnd. 3601, London. HODSON, J. J. (1949), Brit. dent. J., 87, 167. HORACE, B. C. (65-8), 'It hurts me not at all because this man is more learned',

Sat . Rlz., 1, 9, 50. HUBER, R. (1962), IdentiJication News, Nov. 5. HUMBLE, B. H. (1933), Brit , dent. J., 54, 528. HURME, V. 0 . (1948), Child Dev., 19, 213. KALLIS, D. G., and SILVA, D. G. (1967), Aus t . dent. J., 12, 304. KEISER-NIELSEN, S. (1947), Saertryk af Tandlaegebladet, 51, 41.

217

KEISER-NIELSEN, S. (1965), Selected references to publications on forensic odontology, Fed. Dent. In t . , Copenhagen.

KEISER-NIELSEN, S. (1967), Editorial, News Letter, Scand. Soc. For. Odont., 1,4. KEISER-NIELSEW, S. (1967), Ibid. 1, 11/12, 1. KEISER-NIELSEN, S. (1968), Forensic odontology-a survey. Presented at

FDIIERO meeting in Vienna, 26.1.68. KEYES, F. A. (1925), Dent. Cosmos., 67, 1165. KORKHAUS, G. (1955), Dtsch. zahnarztl Zschr., 10, 1769. KROGMAN, W. M. (1962), T h e human skeleton in forensic medicine, Thomas,

Springfield. LAIRD, W. R. E., and STEPHEN, K. W. (1968), Brit . dent. J . , 11, 521. LEWIS, SIR THOMAS (1941), quoted in Roxburgh, A.C., Common S k i n Diseases,

Lewis, London. LUNDQUIST, F. (1962), Forensic Science, vol. I., Interscience, Wiley, London. MANN, J. I). (1893), Forensic medicine and toxicology, Griffin, London. MARTIAL, M. V. M. (40-104), "Rare things please us; so there is greater relish

for the earliest fruit of the season, and roses in winter command a high price", B k . 4, 29, 3.

Medicine and the Law (1946), Lancet, 15, 541. MELLANBY, M. (1934), Med. Kes. Coun. S p . Kep., Series 191, H.M.S.O., London. MILNE, A. A. (1945), W i n n i e the Pooh, 33rd Ed., 54, Methuen, London. MIURATA, F., and SUMITA, M. (1954), J . Jap . dent. Assn., 7, 293. MORGEN, H. (1943), Zahnarztl. Rundschau, 52, 791. MORITZ, A. R. and STETLER, C. J. (1964), Handbook of Legal medicine, Mosby,

St. Louis. MUNCIE, W. (1968), Police J . , 41, 319. NAKAMUKA, K. (1953), Hanzai. z., 19, 164. NAKAMURA, K. (1953), Jap . J . Legal Med. and Crim., 19, 36. Panel Discussion (1966), J . For. Sci., 2, 259. PEDERSEN, P. O., and KEISER-NIELSEN, S. (1961), Tandlaegebladet, 65, 585. PENROSE, L. S. (1968), Brit. Med. J . , 2, 321. PEREIRA, M. (1953) reprint from Simpson K., Modern trends i n forensic medicine,

Butterworth, London. PEREIRA, M. (1968), Personal communication. PIETRUSKY, F. (1955), Kriminalwissenschaft, 335, 92. POLSKY, S. (1956), T h e medicolegal reader, Docket Series, 6, Oceana, New York. POLSOX, C. J . (1965), T h e essentials of forensic medicine, Pergamon, Oxford. RHODES, H. T. F. (1937), T h e criminals we deserve, Methuen, London. RONCHASE, F. (1944), A m . J . Surg., 66, 80. SAAR, H. (1952), Kriminalistik, 6, 32. SCHAIDT, G. (1954), Kriminalwissenschaft, 5, 53. SEBATA, M. (1963), Bull . Tokyo dent. Coll., 4, 83. SIMPSON, K. (1947), Police J . , 2, 266. SIMPSON, K. (1951), In t . Crim. Pol. Rev., 312. SIMPSON, K. (1951), Brit. dent. J . , 99, 229. SIMPSON, K. (1953), Modern trends in forensic medicine, Butterworth, London. SIMPSOX, K. (1964), Forensic medicine, Arnold, London. SIMPSON, K. (1967), A doctor's guide to court, Butterworth, London. SIMPSON, K. (1968), High Court of Justiciary at Edinburgh : Report of Proceed-

ings i.c. H.M. Advocate v. Gordon Hay, 4, 601. SMITH, S., and COOK, W. G. H. (1934), Taylor's Practice and Principles of Medical

Jurisprudence, Churchill, London. SMITH, S., and GLAISTER, J. (1939), Recent advances in forensic medicine,

Churchill. London. SMITH, S. (1940), Police J . , 13, 150. SMITH, S., and FIDDES, I;. S. (1955), Forensic medicine, Churchill, London.

2118

SMITH, S., SIMPSON, K., HOWARD, G., STAFFORD CLARK, D., and NICKOLLS, L. C. (1957), Taylor's Principles and Practice of Medical Jurisprudence, Churchill, London.

S~DERMAN, H., and O'CONNELL, J. J. (1936), Modern criminal investigation, Literary Digest Books, Funk and Wagnells, New York.

SORUP, A. (1924), Vischr. Zahnheilk, 40, 305. SOUDER, W. (1961), Identification News, Dec. 7. STROM, F. (1935), Norske Tannlaegeforen. Tid. , 45, 394. STROM, F. (1963), J. dent. Res., 42, 312. STROM, F. (1963), I n t . Cong. Ser., 80, 39, Excerpa Med. Found., Amsterdam. SUZUKI, K., and KAWASAKI, A. (1966), Bull. Tokyo dent. Coll., 7 , 163. SUYDER, LE MOYNE (1947), Homicide investigation, Thomas, Springfield. SVENSSON, A., and WENDEL, 0. (1955), Crime detection, Cleaver-Hume,

Amsterdam. TAYLOR, A. S. (1844), A manual of medical jurisprudence, Churchill, London. TAYLOR, A. J. W. (1968), Brit . J. Criminology, 8, 170. TRAPOZZANO, V. R., and LAZZARI, B. (1967), J . Pros. Dent., 17, 122. VASILIU, TH. et al. (1958), Minerva Med.-leg. (Torino), 78, 84. WALLIS, H., and PARE, J. W. (1895), Brit. dent. J., 16, 115. WRIGHT, B. (1968), Daily Telegraph, June 7th. ZIMMERMAN, E. R. (1954), Public Health Reports, 69, 1,115.

Documents

The Biggar Murder: Dental, medical, police and legal aspects of a case “ in some ways unique, difficult and puzzling.”