Final answer:
The absence of fingerprints in Bundy's case could be due to caution, such as wearing gloves, while the unique bite mark provided crucial forensic evidence that can uniquely identify a perpetrator.
Step-by-step explanation:
The case mentioned regarding Bundy and the absence of fingerprints involves forensic evidence and criminology, subjects often covered in law and criminal justice courses. The existence of a bite mark rather than fingerprints could be due to a variety of reasons. Offenders like Bundy may have been careful to avoid leaving fingerprints by wearing gloves or wiping down surfaces but made a mistake in leaving a more incriminating piece of evidence like a bite mark, which can be unique to the individual. Moreover, the presence of a bite mark can provide forensic odontologists with dental impressions that can be matched to the suspect's teeth, making it a vital piece of evidence in court. This demonstrates the complexity of criminal behavior and the importance of forensic sciences in solving crimes.