Answer:
Circumstantial.
Explanation:
As per the question, the 'consistent bite marks' alone would not be able to ensure the conviction of the guilty but it, however, serves as 'circumstantial evidence' because it was collected directly from the crime scene that could prove fruitful in developing the case further. Such evidence turn quite helpful in supporting the truth or substantiating the claims but to validate the conviction, more factual evidence would be required to prove the accused to be guilty of the crime. Therefore, 'circumstantial' is the correct answer.
