For the life of me, I cannot translate into words, what the think tank (really a kiddie pond) of the bitemark group (the ABFO recognized by the AAFS as an elite forensics certifying board) is now up to. Agronomy? Aborism (sic)? Word puzzles? Hey there guys and gals, how about some empirical research? Instead you give us a tree?
Are they confused? Or just amateur sleuths, closeted charlatans, poorly trained, semi- literate, desperate, foolish?
Considering the adjectives used in the NAS 2009 report on forensic bitemark “science”, the ABFO clearly has ignored this esteemed multi-scientific governmental advisory group’s message. Some descriptors in its scathing review of the ABFO operative bitemark assumptions and validity claims can be condensed in two words: Junk Science (as in NO science research relevant to what they claim in US courts).
It’s been reported to me that this is the ABFO’s first step in creating its”methodology.”
Nice colors. Uh, what if someone is colorblind?