Man denies biting baby
A 23-YEAR-OLD Ipswich man has denied being responsible for bite marks found on the body of a baby boy.Andrew Marks told Ipswich Crown Court he had not inflicted injuries on the boy – who was aged 16 months at the time – which were found when the baby was examined by a paediatrician and a police surgeon.
A 23-YEAR-OLD Ipswich man has denied being responsible for bite marks found on the body of a baby boy.
Andrew Marks told Ipswich Crown Court he had not inflicted injuries on the boy – who was aged 16 months at the time – which were found when the baby was examined by a paediatrician and a police surgeon.
Jurors have heard an outline of Marks' teeth had matched bite marks discovered near the boy's left nipple.
But Marks, of Bartholomew Street, Ipswich, repeatedly said in court yesterday that he had not caused the injuries and denied assaulting the youngster, causing him actual bodily harm.
Marks also told the jury he had never bitten or otherwise hurt the boy, who cannot be named by order of the court.
The trial has heard from two dental surgeons who had studied photographs of the baby's injuries. Using a special computer programme, Dr Amanda Elmes showed the jury how an outline of Marks' teeth had matched the marks on the child's body.
- 1 Fire breaks out in café near Ipswich town centre
- 2 Child taken to hospital after collision with car in Ipswich
- 3 Car carrying three passengers not wearing seatbelts stopped on A12
- 4 Hopes Summertime Ipswich firework display will go ahead
- 5 New doughnut and coffee chain opening in Ipswich shopping centre
- 6 Fire at waste centre near Ipswich believed to have been started by battery
- 7 Live updates as Suffolk students pick up their A-Level results
- 8 Pride as Ipswich A Level students celebrate results
- 9 Road near Ipswich flooded as drivers forced to find alternative routes
- 10 Tom Hunt condemns Islamophobia after Ipswich Tory's retweets
Police had taken dental impressions of four other people who had been with the baby at about the time of the bite and Dr Elmes said she was almost positive the bite marks were Marks'.
But defence witness Dr John Ritchie said the quality of the photographs was poor and added it would have been "anatomically impossible" for Marks to have caused the injuries he was accused of.
"I do not think the evidence is remotely good enough to attempt any sort of detailed comparison at all," he said.
Judge John Devaux is expected to begin summing up the evidence today before the jury is sent out consider its verdict.