The courtroom and public rhetoric of bite mark proponents clearly ignores the reality of their casework. My latest book “Forensic Testimony” reveals the disconnect between judicial rules of evidence (which indicates the courts’ expectation of scientific reliability) and the self-serving testimony of certain forensic expert witnesses regardless of the possible threat to the public.
The media attachment to this blog is a PowerPoint presentation (in .pdf) titled: Bitemark Evidence – Theory vs Actual Cases
It contains more bitemark casework showing use of this speculative form of forensic identification. See if you can tell the the “good” cases from the “bad” cases.
The unparalleled dichotomy between the legal record versus the testimony of prosecution bitemark dentists in exoneration cases such as Brewer, Brooks, Starks, Stinson, Hill, Young, Jackson, Krone is truly incredible.
See it all here: Description of Bite Mark Exonerations and Arrests