Warren Harvey Case Essay
On the morning of August 7, 1967, a 15-year-old schoolgirl, Linda Peacock, was found murdered in a cemetery in Biggar, near Edinburgh, Scotland. She had been struck with a blunt object and strangled with a rope. Her clothes were disturbed but she had not been raped. However, there was clear evidence of sexual motive for her attack as there was a bite mark on her right breast, which was an oval shape bruise that showed certain irregularities of the dentition, including pitting of the canine biting edges. Investigating officers focused their attention on a nearby detention centre for young men. Dental impressions were taken from 29 inmates and staffs for investigation. Warren Harvey and his colleagues studied these anonymised impressions, excluding all but five suspects, who gave further impressions. A single set, Number 11, was consistent with the bruising on Linda Peacock’s breast. Only at this point was the code broken and Harvey
…show more content…
Harvey studied 1,000 canines in almost 350 boys aged 16-17 years old and found only two teeth with pits similar to those of Hay and none in opposing canines in the same mouth. At the trial in 1968, Harvey presented this evidence and detailed expert testimony on the links between Hay’s impressions and the bruise. The jury found the bite mark evidence convincing and Hay was convicted of murder. Despite the defence wanted the bite mark evidence to be ruled inadmissible, it was allowed by the judge. Because Hay was under 18, he was not given a life sentence but ordered to be detained at Her Majesty’s pleasure. This was the first case in Scotland where the Crown relied on forensic odontology and the first case in the UK where a murder conviction was secured based on the characteristics of a bite mark. This case set an important precedent, paving the way for dental evidence to be used in other rape, assault and murder
Harvey studied 1,000 canines in almost 350 boys aged 16-17 years old and found only two teeth with pits similar to those of Hay and none in opposing canines in the same mouth. At the trial in 1968, Harvey presented this evidence and detailed expert testimony on the links between Hay’s impressions and the bruise. The jury found the bite mark evidence convincing and Hay was convicted of murder. Despite the defence wanted the bite mark evidence to be ruled inadmissible, it was allowed by the judge. Because Hay was under 18, he was not given a life sentence but ordered to be detained at Her Majesty’s pleasure. This was the first case in Scotland where the Crown relied on forensic odontology and the first case in the UK where a murder conviction was secured based on the characteristics of a bite mark. This case set an important precedent, paving the way for dental evidence to be used in other rape, assault and murder